Strain Out a Gnat and Swallow a Camel: How Reverse Statism Endangers the Republic

If you want to send a message to Washington, you must speak in its language. Washington only comprehends the electorate’s desires based upon the margin of victory between the winning candidate and the losing candidate from the opposing major party.

If Obama wins, third party votes will go unnoticed and unheeded, and liberals will take the victory to be an electoral mandate to buckle down on the policies we don’t want.

Third party votes do not say, “I don’t like either candidate, so I’m voting for a better choice,” but rather, “I’m comfortable enough with the way things are to spend my vote on a losing cause.”

If Romney wins, the message will be that Americans want Obama out of office NOW, and prefer the general direction that Romney is willing to take. The Romney administration will receive this as an electoral mandate to move as far away from Obama’s worldview as possible.

THE PHARISAICAL PATRIOT: "Ugh, that gnat! I'd rather be dragged through the desert than use that filthy blade." (Click to enlarge)

You might think that your one vote in a liberal district is meaningless anyway – although of course if everyone subscribed to that idea and resulting course of action, it would make a huge impact. Even popular vote-wise, every vote for Romney is a slap in the face of Obama. Every vote for a third party candidate is mere graffiti on the wall.

Many third-party voters are humble and well-meaning, and many are just angry and feeling insubordinate. Either way, I ask you to respectfully reconsider the situation. America made one of the worst decisions in her relatively young life four years ago, and to prolong it would be painful for generations to come.

I now present to you a pamphlet on the 2012 election and Mitt Romney’s candidacy. Hopefully it will answer all of your questions.

Romney praying before making a commencement speech. (Jae C. Hong AP)

But Mitt Romney’s a Mormon! (Fear not)

Our White House has been residence to Unitarians, at least one likely Deist, and multiple Freemasons. Is Romney’s Mormonism really any weirder?

Romney walks down the central staircase inside the Statehouse during a ceremony marking the end of his term as governor on Jan. 3, 2007. (Josh Reynolds/AP)

Romnesia: Misconceptions about Romney’s record

Romney is often mocked for being inconsistent. In reality, he has been consistent in a way that would be difficult for most of us.

THREE-WAY WRECK: George H.W. Bush, Ross Perot, and Bill Clinton at the second presidential debate of the 1992 election season. Due to America's mostly winner-take-all system, third parties virtually never win, but can still influence the outcome of elections. Scholars speculate that Perot's candidacy might have given Clinton victory, since Perot garnered 19% of the vote that most likely would have otherwise gone to Bush. (AP Photo/Marcy Nighswander)

Reverse statism: A reality check for voters considering third party

If you think an election that can’t be won with your ideal candidate is an election not worth winning at all, think again.

Also of interest: My research paper “Odd Ones Out: Why Third Parties Don’t Fit in the American Political System“.

Just remember: The Federal Reserve. The United Nations. Osama Bin Laden on the loose. The 2008 Financial Crisis. Obamacare. What do these things have in common? Third party voters along with conservatives and libertarians who refused to vote were complicit in their existence.

UPDATE (11/06/12): Why The Founder Of Has Already Voted For Mitt Romney; Former Libertarian candidate: Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for libertarians.

War Over Women: Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney, and what American women want

Mitt and Ann Romney with their five sons, five daughters-in-law, and sixteen grandchildren. (Romney family photo)

So, here’s my latest column in the Communities at The Washington Times…

Rosen vs. Romney: The equality of homemakers and the relate-ability of presidential candidates

Who really has a “dark ages” viewpoint of stay-at-home motherhood, and what does relate-ability have to do with being qualified to run the executive branch of U.S. government?

“Hilary Rosen might not have intended to slight stay-at-home moms when she said that Ann Romney ‘has never worked a day in her life’. No decent person who has a clue about motherhood would want to do so because it simply makes no sense.

If you have been raised by a stay-at-home-mom (like I have) or have simply observed the fury that ignited in response to Rosen’s comments, you’ve probably been informed that stay-at-home moms work harder than Congress and actually know how to spend within a budget they’ve been assigned. Stay-at-home moms save the government expense by providing childcare (and often education) for their own children.

‘The homemaker has the ultimate career,’ C.S. Lewis is often quoted as saying. ‘All other careers exist for one purpose only – and that is to support the ultimate career.’

As conscientious consumers, homemakers also stimulate the economy by saving for and buying best for their children, and ultimately raising and investing in future taxpayers.

Furthermore, choosing to live within one provider’s income when able to do so opens employment opportunities for others.

That being the case, Rosen might have intended only to say that Mrs. Romney can’t relate to women who work outside of the home and thus cannot relate to typical American economic challenges.

But the problem with this is that Rosen’s conclusion is illogical…”

(Click here to continue reading)

Here are some thoughtful comments I received:

“…People seem to project a lot on Mrs. Romney. Rich woman – must sit around doing nothing, eating bonbons and hiring nannies to raise her sons. Makes me wonder whether her critics even like their own children, since they’re so ready to believe that a mother who could afford not to would make sure not to raise her own children. Mrs. Romney appears to be doing something right – by all accounts her sons are decent, sharp, and have taken advantage of their many opportunities to lead good lives. Not a spoiled Paris Hilton himbo in the lot of them. Money can buy advantages, but it can’t buy character. That’s learned.

Whether the Romneys are good parents doesn’t seem to me to be in doubt. Whether Mitt really understands the problems facing most Americans is another issue, one I expect to see debated a lot. Given the propensity of the Obamas to live large and lavish, I’m not ready to assume they understand “working class” people any better than the Romneys. And given Michelle’s fondness for $2,000 sun dresses and designer fashion, I’m not sure their supporters have much room to make an issue of the Romney houses and lavish living. It would be better all around if we stuck to the issues and accepted the fact that Obama and Romney are both wealthy. Wealth doesn’t preclude empathy or wisdom, and poverty doesn’t grant them.”

- JWPicht

“…All the sound and fury signifying nothing parses “never worked a day in her life” from its context and turns it into an issue  - out-of-the-home-working vs stay-at-home moms – that Rosen never intended. Rosen, as a PR consultant amongst other things, is smart enough to know that you that you don’t attempt to clarify in this situation – it will just sound like back-peddling – you just take the hits and wait for it to blow over. But it’s an artificial debate, manically seized on by right-wing pundits who see that Romney is losing the female vote by the proverbial street.

So let’s get back to the realities behind the gender gap. GOP controlled legislatures, after their big sweep in 2010, have being putting anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-equal pay legislation on state law books the length and breadth of the country. Unlike the Rosen controversy, that’s not a manufactured notion. That’s why there’s a gender gap…

- RapidEddie

RapidEddie is making a common mistake by assuming that liberal positions on social issues are all that women really want. Has no one noticed that women are a big part of this “GOP controlled legislature” change?

As I mentioned in an article last year:

“…When I interviewed Kellyanne Conway about the midterm elections last year, I brought up the point that in the House of Representatives, the number of pro-life women increased by 60% while pro-choice women diminished by 16%. There are also more pro-life women governors than abortion rights women governors now.

‘It turns on its head what has been the conventional – albeit false – wisdom that for a woman to prevail in politics, the cost of admission is that she be pro-choice and abortion,” said Conway. “That simply is not true. As America’s voting population has become more pro-life and more conservative generally…that’s being reflected now in the elected officials that they elevate.’…”


IT'S NOT JUST WOMEN BEING DEVALUED - IT'S HOME BEING DEVALUED. Historically, home has gone from being the busy hub of work and entertainment for all family members to becoming the place where people are only supposed to hang out when they’re not working (hence the reason why it’s easy to dismiss stay-at-home moms as non-workers). But technological revolutions have started to bring the productivity of home full circle. Perhaps there has never been a better time to be home!

Would You Vote For An Atheist?

But the catch lies in another hypothetical that revealed to me how clever Miss Scanlan really is.  I pondered for a moment – if Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson were running against Barack Obama, which candidate would I vote for?  Obama professes to be a Christian, while some evidence suggests that Paine and Jefferson were barely deists.  But I would certainly choose the classical liberal candidates over the socialist “liberal” candidates any day.

Seventeen-year-old Teresa Scanlan made headlines this year as the first homeschooler – and first Miss Nebraska – and first seventeen-year-old to win the Miss America crown. Miss America 2011 is one of seven children, a professed Christian and a future Patrick Henry College student.

Mere minutes after Scanlan’s victory, everyone was all a-Twitter about the fact that the homeschooled conservative Christian had managed to find enough favor in the sight of the judges when among them was the shrill, liberal agnostic Joy Behar. The newly-crowned Miss America was certainly not shy about her faith in Christ at the subsequent press conference. Is it possible that her Christianity was ever questioned in the competition?

The next day Miss America appeared on Fox News with Gretchen Carlson, who was Miss America 1989. Carlson asked Scanlan about the testy interview part of the competition:

CARLSON: In fact one of the questions that you got from one of the judges during your all-important interview – one of the judges, Joy Behar – who may not agree with you politically – she asked you whether or not you could vote for an atheist. And you said…

SCANLAN: I said absolutely. I would definitely base who I vote for based on political policies, not on religion, because if that doesn’t affect their political policies, it’s not going to be something I look at.

Walter Hudson at speculated that Behar’s question was intended to trip Scanlan much like Perez Hilton’s question did to Miss California USA 2009 Carrie Prejean. Having seen that recent statistics indicate a growing interest in atheistic leaders, Hudson concluded that he himself is in the supposed minority that would not vote for an atheist – with the rare hypothetical exception of the professed Christian being a socialist and the atheist being a Tea Party supporter…

Click here to continue reading at Latitude821.

Obama launches 2012 campaign; Robert Gibbs to be hired by Facebook?

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs briefs reporters at the White House in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 14, 2010. (Photo/Stephen Masker)

As President Obama announces his re-election bid, buzz surrounds his former press secretary’s talks with Facebook.

President Obama officially launched his re-election campaign on Monday. This unsurprising news came after last week’s buzz that a particular 2012 campaign consultant might be hired by Facebook: Robert Gibbs.

However much that caused some politically astute Facebook users to raise an eyebrow, there’s no need to delve into the nuances of the scenario here. Let’s just say that helping President Obama’s re-election campaign and working for Facebook sounds convenient…

Click here to continue reading (my rather short and lighthearted article) at The Washington Times Communities.

Moral imaginations, blood libel and the meaning of words

Sarah Palin, Barack Obama

“What is government if words have no meaning?”

Such was the question that Jared Loughner asked Representative Gabrielle Giffords at an event in 2007. Unsatisfied by Giffords’ response (or warranted lack thereof), Loughner targeted her with an apparently vengeful fixation.

The budding thought processes of this anarchical philosopher-wannabe clearly had nothing to do with then-obscure Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck – nor did they have anything to do with the then-nonexistent Tea Party. According to a CBS poll, 57% of Americans agree that today’s political tone did not impact Loughner’s attack. 

It is unlikely that anyone would have seriously considered otherwise had Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik not blamed America’s political climate without evidence (disgracing his status as a law enforcement officer). Left-wing leaning media outlets subsequently seized Dupnik’s talking point with zeal and defined the debate in their favor.

However, just hours later, the primary sources that average citizens have access to via the internet flatly contradicted the politicization.

From online message boards to YouTube videos to the classroom, Loughner demonstrated himself to be a pathological riddler who was angry at the world for refusing to answer his intellectually dishonest questions. As Loughner’s incoherent ramblings and love of conspiracy spiraled downward to senseless bloodshed, King Solomon’s warning proved true – “the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly and the end of it is wicked madness” (Ecclesiastes 10:12-13).

In response to the tragedy, President Obama’s January 12th speech in Tucson was a bit better than I expected. It was tender, and for the most part above-board and presidential (it is unfortunate that the hooting and hollering disrupted the atmosphere). Obama even dared to go off-script to emphasize that political rhetoric – and “a simply lack of civility” – did not cause the Tucson massacre…

Click here to continue reading at The Washington Times Communities.

Alabama Policy Institute Dinner features Fred Barnes, Kellyanne Conway and Stephen Moore

Photo by Brandon Robbins

Photo by Brandon Robbins

BIRMINGHAM, Ala., November 11, 2010 – The conservative outcome of the midterm elections was a reigning topic of the Alabama Policy Institute’s Annual Dinner, which took place at the Cahaba Grand Conference center. Established in 1989, the API is “a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families,” and drew an audience of 1100 people to its annual dinner.

Alabama’s newly elected governor and lieutenant governor, Robert Bentley and Kay Ivey attended the event. Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Moore and Fred Barnes formed the panel of guest speakers, all of whom have spoken at previous API events.

“The panelists are all people whose opinions and insights are highly regarded,” Gary Palmer, API president and panel moderator told me via e-mail. “In addition, they are all individuals that I have known for many years and that have also known each other for many years. I think the familiarity helps account for the excellent chemistry of the panel.” …

Click here to continue reading at The Washington Times Communities.

My father took this picture of me with Fred Barnes

My father took this picture of me with Fred Barnes

S.E. Cupp vs. “Christian Atheists”

Winning minds is one thing.  Winning hearts is a totally different matter.  I’ll explain later.

She’s conservative.  She loves and defends Christians.  She believes America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.  She says she would never vote for an atheist President.  But S.E. Cupp herself is an atheist.  In her own words:

“I’m not a militant atheist.  I’ve never really understood the “angry atheist”…I was fascinated by religion at a very young age…I just decided early on that I didn’t buy it, it wasn’t for me.  But I’m envious!  I’m envious of the faithful!  So I defend the faithful, especially the Christian right in America at every opportunity I get…I haven’t closed the door on faith…I really aspire to be a person of faith one day.”

“I’m a fan of George Bush.  I think he had a conviction – personal principles – that required him to answer to Someone Else when he went to bed at night.  Not to the state, and not to himself…that gives me comfort as a citizen knowing that my President is going to bed answering to a Higher Power.”

“As an atheist, I could never imagine electing – voting for – an atheist President…religion keeps a person who is endowed with so much power honest…This is a person who is answering to a Higher Power every night, and not to the state – he doesn’t think the state has all the power, and he doesn’t think he has all the power.  That’s important to me.  I represent 2% of the world.  Why would I want someone who thinks 98% of the world is crazy running the country?

“Liberalism is really threatened by fixed values systems, like Christianity.”

I like to think I adhere to the same Judeo-Christian values that most of religious America does.  It’s an understanding of and a respect for these values that keeps me moral…But even if we agree that nonbelievers can be moral people, how would you know?  Self-identifying as Christian at least tells you what a person strives for, even if he or she routinely falls short.  Self-identifying as an atheist tells you absolutely nothing about my values.”

At least she’s incredibly honest.  But what is keeping her from being a Christian now?

“I believe that science has answered [the question of origins] adequately enough for me.  I just could never fill that hole – the gaps in our knowledge – with some unseen supernatural being.  It just doesn’t make sense to me.”

Fascinating, because for me it is the exact opposite.  I’ve been exposed to plenty of evolutionary science all my life, and it has never made sense to me.  I would love to have a long conversation with Miss Cupp.

I recently saw a book advertised that is titled “The Christian Atheist: Believing in God but Living as If He Doesn’t Exist” by Craig Groeschel.  I haven’t read it, but the concept is quite revealing.  The Church in our day and age is at fault for a lot of the nonsense and corruption in the world because so many of her members reason like atheists.  By that I mean they do not truly believe in the living power of Christ.  They believe in the power of themselves, and when that goes wrong, they seek the wisdom and power of elitists.  They don’t live out the Acts of the Apostles – as though believers whose lives are recorded in the Bible worshiped a powerful God who isn’t around anymore.  They repeatedly try to compromise intellectually when there really is no need to.  They dumb down the Faith.  According to S.E. Cupp, the self-proclaimed Christian President Obama “elevates atheism” to something it is not.

Thus we have an intriguing paradox: an atheist who thinks like a Christian in a world of Christians who think like atheists.  Most of S.E. Cupp’s mind is won, but her heart is not.  The hearts of the “Christian Atheists” might be won, but their minds are not.  Hmm…that is still too broad and sweeping of a generalization, however.

I’m curious as to what other atheists (or semi-atheists) think of S.E. Cupp.  Is anyone else even the slightest bit envious of people of faith?  Does anyone else give credit to and respect Judeo-Christian values and recognize how unique Christianity is in contrast to other worldviews?  How do most atheists feel about being such a tiny minority in the world?


Era Of The Supreme Court: What Is At Stake

Read the following, and please read my mother’s blog post, A Call To Prayer and visit Dutch Sheets’ website,

The real issue of this election is Justice: the issue of the Supreme Court.  The following sheds brilliant light on the subject and gives you a real understanding of government.  Opinions must fall aside and cause and effect choices be looked at for what they really are.  Our choice is narrowed down to two: life vs. death, and thus I will repeat what I have said before:

McCain/Palin isn’t the worst tasting gnat, but Obama/Biden is quite a large camel to swallow.

Important news from Dutch Sheets:

supreme_court_building“With the upcoming elections 8 days away, satan has worked hard to deflect attention off of the real issue.  This has been relatively easy through the economic meltdown and an unpopular war.  Many Americans, including Christians, will vote based on these two issues.  While these things are obviously important, they pale in light of the real issue-the Supreme Court.

The cover story of USA Today, on Thursday of last week, spelled this out quite clearly. It stated that the real legacy of the next president won’t be the economy or the war, but the Supreme Court.  The next president of the United States will appoint at least 2, and maybe 3, Justices in his first term.  If he serves 2 terms, it could be 5 Justices-there are 5 of the 9 on the Court 70 years old or older!  Since the trend is to appoint younger and younger Justices, the next president will most likely shape the court for the next 30-40 years! This means we are not voting only for a president, we are voting for the Court we want for the next generation! The vote we cast on November 4th will do more to shape the culture we give our children and grandchildren than any other vote of our lifetime! Perhaps some succinct bullet points will help us see this clearly:

  • Without question, no institution, organization, or agency has shaped the current culture of America in the last 50 years more than the Supreme Court.  You don’t need millions of people, the majority in Congress, or the President to shape the culture of America.  You only need 5 people-the majority of the Supreme Court.  Five people can kill 50 million babies (the number aborted since Roe vs. Wade), legalize homosexual marriage, remove parental rights, put God out of schools and government, rob from us our godly heritage, etc.
  • It is now split-sometimes 5-4 toward life, family, morality, our godly heritage, the intent of our forefathers Supreme Court Justiceswhen they wrote the Constitution; sometimes 5-4 toward death, immorality, legislating their beliefs from the bench (though not their constitutional role or right, this is easy-they simply say the Constitution is a fluid, living document and therefore must be changed to accommodate the times), removing God from our nation, etc.

  • 2-3 Justices will retire over the next 4 years, their replacements chosen by the next president; possibly a couple more will step down 5 to 8 years from now, making it 5 potential Justices that could be appointed by the next president if he serves 2 terms. This will determine how the Court rules for a generation.

  • The first two Justices to go will almost certainly be Stevens who is 88 years old and Ginsberg who is 75 and ill.  They are the two most liberal and are no doubt waiting to retire, hoping for a president that will replace them with 2 more liberals.  These two replacements alone, if they are good, conservative judges could shift the Court toward righteousness for many years.

  • Conclusion: our vote this November 4th will be not for a president, not for the economy, not for ending our involvement in Iraq.  Our vote will be for what we want America to look like 40 years from now!

The ramifications of this are staggering!  We are no doubt reaping great judgment now in America-diseases, family breakdowns, violence, a death culture, destructive weather, and much more-because of abortion alone – not to mention expelling God and His laws from our schools and government.  I don’t know that we can survive another 40 years of this without completely losing our godly heritage and destiny.  The economy will recover and the war will end no matter who is elected president-but this is not the case with the Court and the soul of this nation.”

If you don’t know where the candidates stand on the Court and the kind of Justices they would appoint, read the USA Today article.  It makes their positions very clear.  Share this information with every friend and acquaintance you have.  And finally, pray like never before for God’s will to be done in this election. We CAN win this war and we MUST NOT lose this war.  Pick up your word, go to war and let’s make history together. Here are some practical suggestions to consider:

  1. Fast (a meal a day; a day this week; a Daniel fast; 3 days; TV; etc.) and spend the time praying.
  2. Agree in prayer with someone everyday for God’s will to be done.
  3. Hold nightly prayer meetings
  4. Take time in every gathering to pray. (Take 15 minutes in every service to pray for the elections. Turn an entire   service to harp and bowl style intercession-worship and prayer combined.)
  5. Join 2 or more friends on a conference call and pray for 15, 20, or 30 minutes.
  6. Pray on the way to work (and on the way home).
  7. Pray before you go to sleep.
  8. Pray before church services.
  9. Ask God to give you His strategy-He will!

For God and Our Great Nation,
Dutch Sheets

If you would like to hear Dr. Sheets’ 700 Club interview in its entirety on 10-23-08 where he challenges us to pray for the Supreme Court, go to the link below.

Lynn Vincent of WORLD MAGAZINE wrote:

“It is no exaggeration to say that on judicial philosophy, Obama and his Republican presidential rival, John McCain, are like the North and South Poles – as far apart as you can get.


“What matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult.  In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon.  That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”


“[The] role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law.”

“The Democratic candidate’s view of justice “completely displaces the dispassionate model, in which judges take an oath not to have any partiality, no matter the status of the litigant,” said Wendy Long, legal counsel to the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network. “Obama is saying Lady Justice should rip off her blindfold and show ‘empathy’ for certain kinds of litigants before the court.  That’s the opposite of the American ideal of impartial justice.”



Dispelling The Top 7 Myths Of Election 2008

Some have stated that I could do better in my arguments. That is one thing we agree on – I can do better and will do better in the future, so help me GOD. I didn’t call anyone names. I would never write anything that demeans a fellow person made in the Image of GOD. That is not just the meager word “clowns” that was used – rather, ’tis an acronym that stands for a political demographic I have identified. There exists the “Nascar Dads vote”, the “Soccer Moms vote”, and the “CLOWNS vote”. Both typing and speaking “Third-party advocates” gets tiring after awhile, so the acronym is helpful.

Being a CLOWNS voter doesn’t mean you are evil or stupid, it just means your thought process regarding government affairs is, whether liberal or conservative, very…well, unique, to say it obsequiously, because regardless of your specific arguments you are still following a trend of voting for a candidate designed after your own image…and such a candidate doesn’t really exist, so you have elevated a fellow whom you have imagined to be the next best thing.

I’m not insulting you as a person because of this choice, but I highly disapprove of your leadership ability and common sense judgment. Hence, I attempted to creatively explain that by comparing the mental characteristic run down to a suitor evaluation.

I was accused of “trashing the only men who are trying” to govern the country righteously. No, I am not trashing any men, but rather am pointing out that some politicians’ means are not capable of reaching productive ends, and the voters that support them follow suit. It is that simple. Only GOD can judge the motives. Mankind doesn’t really know what is going on in a fellow human being’s heart. But that is beside the point. That is why I said that there comes a time when intentions and opinions don’t really matter – it ultimately doesn’t matter what your intention is when you vote because your vote will still have an effect separate from your many personal intentions: directly or indirectly, it will put a leader in office. The outcome of this Election is our responsibility. I think there is a dangerous division in the Church that is hindering the Spiritual Battle. It is a burden to see things you cannot see. Hopefully one day when we are living in the presence of CHRIST I will ask HIM to explain it to you, since I know HE will explain better than me.

Furthermore, I am not saying the majority of men in your church are unfit to marry. The CLOWNS vote men exist for the CLOWNS vote women, not for me (forgive me, I couldn’t resist). I simply think they have a poor understanding of government, and as I have a deep interest and concern for American government, that remains a key point in a “suitor evaluation”. I am not interested in men that display incapable means of political practice. They may be very intelligent on other issues, and may be very serious Believers, but they really shouldn’t try to mess around with government for the fun of it – which is what Third-party candidates appear to do.

If you haven’t wondered already, I’m most likely getting this standard by comparing guys to my own father. I think that his military and financial experience and understanding of government make him far more qualified to run for President than Chuck Baldwin & Co., but he knows that it would be silly to try to grab the highest seat in the nation without first serving the country in local and State governments…and thus move upward. Why? Because it better prepares you for the highest political office in the land by giving you practical political experience and keeps you humble by testing you thoroughly. To not allow yourself to be tested in that manner is Spiritually weak regarding political authority.

I deeply appreciate the candid critiquing, because it can only help me improve. But you have attacked my writing style much more than the factual information I included in my article, and thus you have only bolstered my points. You have remained on the negative by bringing up easily dispelled myths about Senator McCain and even President Bush, but you still have not brought forth positive evidence for your chosen candidates. I’m surprised that you great logicians missed that!


Being a nice Christian guy isn’t enough. Being a radio host, lobbyist, and even Pastor isn’t enough. Where is the political fruit? If you are going to elect someone to the highest political office in the country, that person ought to have already displayed positive political fruit and experience. You never know if a leader really is who they claim to be until they have been tested…and I mean TESTED. Getting something accomplished in office is not as easy as it looks. If those third party candidates really care so much about reforming the country, why are they trying to skip other political offices and swoop for the Presidency? It makes me wonder if they really understand how government works.


Obviously, one of us is wrong.  I am not so shallow as to expect my warning to do any good in the ears of someone who already has their heart set sail on a course into the wild blue yonder. If you have not come around by now, there is really nothing else to say in this matter, but I will provide the following information so as to dispel propaganda purported by the liberal media and beyond.

That is all there is…there isn’t anymore…and thus I shake the dust off my feet.


~Amanda Christine Read~


1. “McCain supports liberal justices and is not a Constitutionalist.”

Senator McCain, in a speech given last May at Wake Forest University, said this…

I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the President’s call to make.”

I trust that McCain will stand by that because he has been tested. The Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve a Supreme Court Justice is that the judge must be qualified – that is, fit for the job, regardless of ideology. Don’t believe me? Well then, consider this: How else would we get Conservative judges into the Supreme Court if all liberal Senators turned them down (and Democrats often do) because they disagreed with their ideology? The Constitution protects the President’s authority so that the direct will of the people will be accomplished through their popular election of that President. Senator McCain is a mature Conservative that understands this and has been striving to set a good example for the rest of the Senate. Of course, you might not understand this because you apparently want a government designed after your own image, and such a government does not exist.

McCain will appoint judges that abide by the Constitution and don’t legislate from the bench. He doesn’t have to conduct a “litmus test” because qualified judges that abide by the Constitution and don’t legislate from the bench will oppose Roe v. Wade because it’s a phony, unconstitutional legislation! Contrast this view of government with Obama’s liberal view. Obama practically said in the third debate that he would not appoint a justice that isn’t made after his own image! Oh my, that sounds familiar…

2. “McCain isn’t truly pro-life.”

This statement is almost hilarious, especially since many staunch liberals know that it isn’t true (the NARAL gave McCain a grade of 0%) and are scared to death of him because of it!

McCain on Roe v. Wade:

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion – the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”

There is no greater nobility than to sacrifice for a great cause and no cause greater than protection of human dignity. Decency, human compassion, self-sacrifice and the defense of innocent life are at the core of John McCain’s value system and will be the guiding principles of a McCain Presidency.

‘To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all.’

McCain didn’t support the Sanctity of Life Act because he was being consistent with his Federalist standings: stop adding to Federal (National) law and give the States more power over their own laws so the American people will be able to more effectively govern themselves.  Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it was decided by a judge and judges should not make law – they should defend it.  McCain is a proven staunch Federalist, and with him in office more decisions will be given to the people directly on the State level.  Now, that’s a way we can positively influence the government – through controlling the leadership of our States! The CLOWNS vote won’t even have to worry anymore!

His promise of a pro-life administration is further bolstered by the appointment of Sarah Palin, a heroine in both word and deed of the pro-life movement.

The whole “life of the mother” deal is just a little legal clause that has to be added to the end of everything, but it’s rarely – if ever – used. Everyone ought to know that in reality abortion wouldn’t be necessary, as you would only have to induce early labor or deliver the baby by c-section in such a case. Very rarely is an abortion ever attempted for such a reason. Furthermore, only 1% of abortions are ever attempted due to rape or incest, and that number will certainly plummet once the power over abortion ruling is put back in our hands.

The question of embryonic stem-cell research is a strange one. I am certain that McCain would not advocate taking more human embryos for research because that would be against the dignity of human life. But McCain said that the tough point about this issue is that those embryos that have already been taken will either be discarded or left perpetually frozen. The attacks on McCain regarding this don’t even address the morality issue of whether we as a culture should allow artificially generating embryos and subsequently freezing them. Man’s attempt at manipulating conception outside of GOD’s natural design brings with it its own self-generated dilemmas. But to harp on McCain for the ramifications of a moral dilemma is just a shallow way of trying to find fault with him.

3. “McCain supports the torture of prisoners of war.”

McCain was tortured when he was a prisoner of war for five years, and he is perhaps the most outspoken Republican against torture, so I’ve got no clue where this one came from. I’m sure that every politician has ended up supporting a particular bill they may not entirely agree with for whatever legal reason. You don’t really know the full story unless you read the bill and the current events of that moment yourself.

4. “The Republican Party was once a Third-party, and Third-parties of today can be just as effective.”

The oft repeated claim in defense of Third parties is that the Republican Party began as “a small, insignificant third party in 1860 when Lincoln was elected”. 1860? America was only 84 years old! Things were just getting started! The entire government landscape was completely different because it was not fully formed. Women did not yet have the right to vote. If I’m not mistaken, Senators weren’t even elected by popular vote yet. This argument is, therefore, beside the point: in this past century, CLOWNS candidates have borne no fruit.

To have an effective understanding of American government, you must understand the following:

“A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems.

Under a two-party system, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature (or a legislative house in a bicameral system), and is referred to as the majority party. The other party is referred to as the minority party.

Notable examples of countries with “two party systems” include the United States and Jamaica. Some other countries that feature weak third or fourth parties, such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Malaysia, Portugal and Australia are often thought of as being two party states as well, as actual governance of the country may be dominated by only two parties even though other parties may have reasonable bases of support.

Generally, a two party system becomes a dichotomous division of the political spectrum with an ostensibly right and left party, Tories vs. Labour in some commonwealth countries, Republicans vs. Democrats in the US, etc.” (

“The American two-party system results in part from the relative absence of irreconcilable differences within the American electorate about basic social, economic, and political institutions and in part from the absence of electoral rewards for minor parties. The traditions of plurality elections from single-member constituencies and of a single elected executive give few chances of victory or reward to parties that cannot muster the plurality.

Because of the two-party system, all American presidents and almost all members of Congress elected since the Civil War have been either Democrats or Republicans…While the two-party system has long characterized national politics, it has not invariably marked the politics of the states. In some measure, the national two-party system of the late nineteenth century was an aggregate of one-party states. The incidence of thatstatewide one partyism declined in the twentieth century, but the Democrats maintained a one-party supremacy in the states of the Deep South from the Reconstruction period into the 1960s and in some cases into the 1970s (the Republicans dominated the South from the late 1980s into the early twenty-first century). Occasionally, too, states have had three-party systems for short periods of time. Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Minnesota all included a party from the Progressive movement in their party systems in the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1990s and early 2000s, a number of third-party presidential candidates, including Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, both of the Reform Party, and Ralph Nader, of the Green Party, challenged Democratic and Republican candidates but with little success.” (

You must stop trying to redefine American government. Sure, through GOD all things are possible, but HE chose to put you in a country that has a Two-Party System. If you don’t like that you should move somewhere else.

5. “President Bush lied about the War on Terror.”

Now, tell me that and you’re treading on dangerous territory. If you think George W. Bush a liar…I hate to break it to you, but this is not a mere difference of opinion. You have been brainwashed. Brainwashed by the liberal media and people with self-serving agendas. I have watched malleable hearts and minds get crushed and confused and never know what hit them. The media has aimed its fiery darts at President Bush from the moment he set foot in office – before then, actually – and they have used every single opportunity since then to bash him. The majority of the media as well as Liberal Democrats despise Bush – what do you expect them to tell you? They wouldn’t dwell on a topic of good report if it stared them in the face for fear that it might make Bush look righteous.

The military had a post-war plan, but the State Department was some how allowed to interfere. If the military had been allowed to implement their plan, order would have been established much sooner. My father was a diplomat in the U.S. Army (in fact, my family and I accompanied him on a tour to Uzbekistan 13 years ago) and he worked with people in the State Department. He could not believe the level of incompetence they displayed which mostly stemmed from a Liberal agenda. Many in the State Department do not understand or appreciate the workings of the U.S. military.

John McCain has an excellent understanding of the U.S. military and the War on Terror and that is one reason why he should be Commander in Chief.

Bush did not lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein did have WMDs at one time, and he used them against the Kurds! He had resources for developing more, and there may very well still be WMDs hidden some where. We invaded Iraq because Hussein (who hated America) supported radical Islamic terrorists, which left Iraq a refuge for blood-thirsty terrorists to hide and plot in. If Iraq hadn’t become the central battleground, America would most likely have become that battleground instead.

As for the Patriot Act: if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of? Your privacy will not be intruded upon as long as you have no connections to terrorist organizations. Terrorists are outlaws that don’t deserve privacy rights. The government isn’t going to waste time snooping on you for the fun of it. They will only search you out if they have evidence that you are a terrorist. It’s that simple.

6. “The Republican and Constitution Party platforms are completely different.”

Perhaps “protectionist” wasn’t the exact word I was looking for in reference to the Constitution Party platform, but I was referring to the obsession with keeping America locked up in her own little world and not having an international presence. However, the War on Terror is still outside of this realm of debate because it is more than Constitutional – we were attacked first and Iraq was part of the strategy to protect us from future attacks. Thus far, the strategy has worked. Be thankful that you are still alive because of it.

Here are some examples of similarities. The rest you can read for yourselves.


Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country. We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards.

We affirm every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious objects or symbols, or becoming subject to government-imposed hiring practices. Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace. We deplore the increasing incidence of attacks against religious symbols, as well as incidents of anti-Semitism on college campuses. “


Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny. We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised. We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted. We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.”

The Republican Party Platform is based on the same world view the Constitution Party Platform is. The only difference is that the Republican Party Platform is more realistic, you might say, especially since we have a Two-Party system.

7. “There is no difference between Barack Obama and John McCain.”

Of all the myths, this is the silliest and most easily dispelled. It is worse than a mere myth – it is delusional. To begin, watch this. To follow, read through this. To finish off, just look at the number of raging Liberals that are planning victory parties and are preparing to celebrate Darwin’s 200th Anniversary.

This debate once again returns to the understanding of American government. If you cannot see what dire straits America will be in if she has both a Liberal Democrat President and a Liberal Democrat majority in Congress, you lack common sense, plain and simple. You are not acting brave and dispelling any sort of “scare tactic” (which does not exist), you are merely blind folding yourself and attempting to dance across a busy high way and expecting to not get hit. Don’t tempt the LORD, which is what the devil tried to get JESUS to do when telling HIM to throw HIMSELF off the pinnacle of the temple.


- Matthew 4:7

The Suitor Evaluation

There are many fine Christians that have taken opposite sides in this Presidential Election.  I have no desire to drive a wedge between myself and them because of politics, seeing that they may very well be right on other issues and valuable allies in the faith.  However, there comes a time in some debates when cause and effect facts come into play and opinions and intentions no longer matter.  I cannot bear the guilt of not issuing some sort of warning that certain applications of other voters’ “rightness” are very far off target when I have evidence to prove it.  To illustrate how serious this Presidential Election is to me, I have decided to put my personal future on the line.

A few years ago Doug Phillips released a popular seminar on “How To Evaluate A Suitor” (I found that interesting when I first heard about it, considering that his eldest daughter and son are both quite a bit younger than me).  Well, I believe I have found an extremely simple pass-or-fail exam for that evaluation.

I would never marry a man who refuses to vote for McCain-Palin in this Presidential Election.

Why?  Because of the following sad deductions:

1.  It reveals a fatal flaw in leadership and common sense judgment.

For all perfections and good intentions he might have, this makes the gentleman untrustworthy.  It is a sign of blind surrender that is hidden under a cosmetic guise of principle.  The devil has you right where he wants you: blind-folded, tied up with silly hang ups and in a tiny out-of-the-way corner in the national scene.

“And do not give the devil an opportunity.” – Ephesians 4:27

2. It reveals that he is more interested in himself, his personal desires, his appearance of “integrity” and theological “reputation” rather than the well being of his family and country.

“He who separates himself seeks his own desire, he quarrels against all sound wisdom. A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind.” - Proverbs 18:1-2

Third-party voters are suffering from what I refer to as Candidate Loser Over Winner Narcissistic Syndrome (CLOWNS).  The symptoms are an extreme irascible desire to see one’s own beautiful philosophical reflection in a Presidential candidate; which becomes a lust so overwhelming that they would rather vote for a loser over one that could conceivably be an actual winner.  I would like to hope that most voters contemplating joining the CLOWNS vote are just misinformed and will change their minds before fully sinking to that level.

3. It reveals a profound disrespect for the office of President of the United States of America and the lives that were lost throughout the nation’s history to secure your right to vote through the unique Electorate system, as well as an ignorance of government.

“Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of GOD; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.” – Romans 13:2

Because of man’s sinful nature, government is YAHWEH’s idea, not man’s.  We have a responsibility to ensure that we do everything in our power to uphold the unique structure of American government and not let it get taken over by Socialist doctrine.  At this moment the only thing standing between the Obama-Biden Socialist doctrine is McCain-Palin.

The Third-party candidates aren’t even present in the debates this year, so they are essentially jokers in a deck of playing cards.  The idea of an Independent film industry is wonderful, providing you have the money and skills to do it the right way.  But the idea of an Independent political industry is absurd.  Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way. As my father says,

“Political scientists say that for the Presidential system to work out (all things being equal), there must only be a two-party system. This is so in view of the fact that, unlike in Parliamentary where the Parliament is supreme, the President wields tremendous political power. He should be elected by the majority and not mere plurality.
On another point, what the political scientists say is that an ideal situation that is fertile for the presidential system is a two party system in view of the fact that under the presidential set up the locus of political power lies in the office of the president. With a multi party system, he would have “enormous” difficulty passing administration bills because he has no political control of the members of the legislative department (having so many political parties with diverse party agenda).  India is currently considering moving to a 2 party presidential system like the US because of the growing size of the population.”

The John Quincy Adams quote (“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” ) only applies to the unique American 2-party Presidential Electorate system and is thus irrelevant to the CLOWNS vote.  You must be hardworking and get to the top through the primaries in one of the two major parties to have any positive government influence.  By the way, you might find it interesting to note that John Quincy Adams actually lost his second Presidential Election to Andrew Jackson.  I wonder why…

Third-parties have always been damaging in the U.S.  They only contribute to the adversary’s divide-and-conquer strategy against righteous leaders.  Evidence of CLOWNS vote damage is apparent in history.  Perhaps Theodore Roosevelt’s greatest political blunder was the Progressive Party, which split the Republican vote and put Democrat Woodrow Wilson in office (who introduced terrible economic baggage that we are still suffering from).  Don’t forget about Ross Perot’s miserable contribution of dividing Republicans and getting Democrat Bill Clinton in office (need I say more?).

Why do I appear anti-Democrat and pro-Republican when some think them indistinguishable?  Though there are a few exceptions in each party, liberals are the majority of the Democratic Party while conservatives are the majority of the Republican Party (speaking of, the Republican Party platform is no different from the Constitution Party platform, with the possible exception of the Constitution Party’s protectionist stance, which I, coming from a military family, understand to be unfounded and dangerous).  On the record, the Democrats have caused the worst problems in American government while the Republicans’ worst flaw is in letting the Democrats get away with it at times. However, allowing a liberal Democrat President to get in office now will not make things better nor “teach anyone a lesson”.


4. It reveals the flimsy character of a sore loser who refuses to continue servanthood because his chosen candidate didn’t win the primary.

Most football coaches are more gracious than that.  Being a gracious loser comes from having the humility to realize that your loss was a fault of your own strategy, not a fault of the system and rule books.  Holding up a whiny attitude is not classy and extremely unbecoming.  The very action conjures up images of a pouty little child stamping off saying, “I don’t like this game anymore.  I’m going to go play by myself…” This is exactly what the CLOWNS vote has done.

Then CLOWNS have the gall to play sour grapes and smear John McCain’s record in ways contrary to fact (even stooping so low as to call him “the lesser of two evils”), as if it is OK to call a professing Christian “evil.”  How judgmental.  How silly.   It is worth pondering, I might add, the amazing grace shown this man, and the depth of character and substance of soul he displayed in enduring being tortured in a prison camp for five years.  People possessing the gall to sling reckless terms like “evil” at John McCain really would be better served by silencing themselves, or perhaps using the term rather to describe liberal political ideals such as abortion and same-sex marriage or maybe terrorist activities.

“A false witness will not go unpunished, and he who tells lies will not escape.” – Proverbs 19:5

“A worthless man digs up evil, while his words are like scorching fire.” - Proverbs 16:27

If I were a recently arriving immigrant to this country, I would conclude from observable evidence that the CLOWNS and the liberals both do not think very highly of their country, or have somewhere been misinformed of how truly good they have it in the U.S.A. As a naturally born American and as a Christian, I actually am nearly convinced that many hate this country because it isn’t the utopia that liberal intellectuals dreamed of after the French Enlightenment.

Surprised at my conclusion?  Well, explain this: CLOWNS talk about how wonderful America once was and how wonderful they hope it will be through their own power, but right now they are willing to condemn the only Constitutionally valid Conservative Party that is holding it together – The Republican Party – because some how that party is beneath them and deserves their rejection.  They even bash George W. Bush like he is a criminal.  I have invested so many prayers in President Bush since I was a 10 year old child that it deeply hurts me to hear people condemn him.  They have lost all ability to respectfully and constructively criticize – so much so that they have organized the CLOWNS vote out of protest.  There is nothing Biblical about that, so it is thus something entirely built up out of extreme confidence in their own human reason, which is a pattern of thinking that came out of the “Enlightenment”.

If I have misspoken here, then somebody prove it.  Prove to me that America is some sort of failing country destined to be a fascist global regime (can anyone spell B-O-G-U-S?).  Prove to me that voting third party is truly a responsible, politically sound avenue to bringing about godliness in this nation.  Prove to me that you honor the ONE TRUE GOD, YAHWEH who commands you to “Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8) and HIS decision to place you in this nation at this time in history.  Bring forth your arguments, and let us see who has more facts in their favor.


5. It reveals a shirking of and misunderstanding of Biblical responsibility and authority.

This one especially addresses men that have ridiculed Sarah Palin.  I have heard some say that they think that Christians voting for McCain-Palin will win an election but “lose a culture war” because we would have a woman Vice President.  Lose a CULTURE WAR????  I’ll tell you how to lose a culture war!  Allow the most liberal, socialist, pro-choice, naïve man in the Senate (Barack Hussein Obama II) into the most powerful office in America and you’ve sold your nation’s soul to the devil in one fell swoop, Mister!

The CLOWNS vote may have a familiar knowledge of the way the American government could have functioned ideally 200 years ago, but the time has come to get your heads out of the clouds and see reality. WHETHER OR NOT SARAH PALIN IS VICE PRESIDENT WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE REGARDING WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP POSITIONS.  She would still end up returning to her position as Governor of Alaska anyway.  Ultimately, while the rest of us are voting on principle and values, you are voting on sex, and that is completely ridiculous.  This is significant coming from me, since I am a lady against feminism.  However, I think feminism is the liberal-socialist-Marxist misogynist movement that abuses the womanly nature, and Sarah Palin has not appealed to that movement at all.  In fact, feminists hate her! Rather than appeal to that crowd, she is filling a governmental void.  How do you think she got to such a high rank in Alaska in the first place?  There was a void made by principled men avoiding public duty.  I have heard stay-at-home mothers say that they wouldn’t even want their husbands to be VP.  Well, there you have it.  The “good men” sit around coaching from the bleachers, causing more unruly argument than anything else, yet they think a woman stepping up in place of them is such a travesty.  “Good men” better not say anything against a godly woman public servant unless they themselves will serve.

Like it or not, women are not a minority, but rather the majority of the population and thus the majority of the vote – at least 51% of the Electorate in fact - and last year a figure said that 9 (18%) of the 50 State Governors are women and 11 (22%) of the Lt. Governors are women.  Rightfully or wrongfully, you’re stuck with it.  Women’s status in government will not change overnight or be somehow protected in any way if McCain-Palin lose or win.  The role of women in politics can only be influenced generationally, not via contemporary administrating.  Do you think that Sarah Palin is promoting a false “women-can-do-it-all” image?  In your dreams! Whatever happened to THROUGH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE?  Remember that very few people could hold such a high office as Governor of a State.  A person has to be called to be a leader in that way, and fortunately there are people called by God to serve in such a way.

The Biblical account of Deborah is no excuse for feminism, but rather is an explanation that sometimes when the car swerves off the lane, you shouldn’t be surprised if a woman happens to grab the wheel.  It further indicates that when a woman does grab the wheel, she is not sinning.  A woman in a political leadership position is not a sin.  It is a result of the failure of men leaders. In this case, men can rightly blame themselves.  Things were going very badly in Israel when the glory of saving the nation was put into the hands of women (Deborah and Jael).  Wouldn’t you agree that things are going very badly in the United States of America, largely because liberal politicians wield way too much power, and have for too many decades now, and no godly men have tried or been able to stop them?   May we ask why this is?  The New Testament also chronicles powerful women and their influence:

“And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the GOD-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.” - Acts 17:4

“Now [Philip the evangelist] had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses.” – Acts 21:9

We have the opportunity to prepare great men leaders for future generations of political power so that the Conservative women won’t have to step up to bat in their stead, but until then, be gracious.  If you have a bone to pick with women leaders, Nancy Pelosi should be your target.  She’s the grueling leader of the “monstrous regiment” that people keep heralding, not Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is not your wife or daughter, and thus you have no authority to judge her personal decisions.  As a voter you may judge her ideology, World View and political decisions, but not personal ones.  Phony personal judgments undeniably entered into this Presidential Election; i.e., the comments regarding her eldest daughter.  On this train of thought, Bristol Palin is neither your daughter nor your betrothed, so you have no authority to judge her life either.  I am not saying that immoral decisions should be accepted as OK or repeated – no, not at all.  But you must remember where your authority lies regarding the judgment of someone else’s personal life.  It isn’t our job to condemn souls.

6. It reveals a Spiritual and mental weakness of discernment in the fields of political judgment and investing time and money; naivete regarding world events; along with an idle ego.

A Third-party candidate may be wonderful in his own way, but if he is bearing no political and governmental fruit, what value is he as a leader and why do you waste your time supporting him?  That is idleness and wasteful spending.  Furthermore, it is damaging to the results of the Presidential Election.  You know that your vote bears weight, and a CLOWNS vote will only benefit Obama/Biden.  You and your agenda will be forgotten about and you will gradually become irrelevant.  Once again, that’s exactly what the enemy wants to happen to you, and you are letting him have his way.

“And do not give the devil an opportunity.” – Ephesians 4:27

A President must be selected based on his political fruit.  Senator John McCain has showed positive political fruit.  He is pro-life and he is a Constitutionalist.  CLOWNS vote candidates have displayed very little – if any – positive political fruit (and the same can be said about the Liberal Democrat opponents).  The CLOWNS vote is idle, and idleness is the devil’s workshop.  The CLOWNS vote has done as little work as possible to avoid “tainting” themselves and have thus attempted to prove by a meager wink and a promise that they are the ones for the job.  The jib-jab type satirical ads mocking Bush, Clinton, McCain and Obama on The Constitution Party candidates’ website are very unprofessional and unpresidential for serious Presidential and Vice Presidential contenders to flaunt, which further exposes their illegitimacy.  They claim to be like one of the Founding Fathers running for President and boast about having no flip-flopping record (*ahem* they barely have any – if they do have any – political record at all).  That is even worse than the windy naïve Obama!  Now that’s something to be very embarrassed about.  Be ashamed.  Be very ashamed.

“In all labor there is profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.” - Proverbs 14:23

“The naïve believes everything, but the sensible man considers his steps.” - Proverbs 14:15

The CLOWNS are obviously just as confused as the Socialists.  They do not understand the high stakes of appointing Supreme Court Justices (need I remind you that they are appointed for life?).  They do not understand the high stakes of the Economy and the cause of the financial crisis.  They do not understand the high stakes of the War on Terrorism and the enemies that have their hearts and minds set on slaughtering us…and how jubilant they would be to see a Socialist President of the United States of America.

The idea of keeping yourself untainted by avoiding voting for McCain-Palin is akin to the following parable written by my mother:

“Folks, this is like knowing that a murder or robbery is going to take place, and instead of calling the police to stop it, you go to your church and start a petition all agreeing that it is a bad thing to murder or rob a bank, and coming back a week later to present your petition from the godly people condemning murder and robbery to the community, after the death and destruction has taken place. You take the “high road” without getting your hands dirty because you didn’t want to get involved in the process that could have stopped the evil deeds. And thus, the mis-directed action results in more evil abounding.”

“There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” - Proverbs 14:12

Ultimately, while the rest of us are voting on principle, CLOWNS are voting on liberal propaganda (“John McCain did…blahblahblah!”).  While the rest of us are voting on values, CLOWNS are voting on sex (“Sarah Palin is blasphemous!”).  While the rest of us are voting on common sense, CLOWNS are voting on conspiracy (“Republicans and Democrats want to take over the world! We’re all gonna die!”).  CLOWNS may very well be doing it with hearty intentions out of conscience and in faith, but to actually accomplish anything, you need to get a reality check and vote sensibly.

So now we must answer honestly: Regardless of which candidate you will vote for, which candidate do you want to see as your President for the next four years – McCain or Obama? The result will only be one or the other of those two. Now, CLOWNS, since you still have time to influence who that President will be, toss aside your self-righteousness, your idle ego, and all things silly.  Find some real principles to vote on!


Prayers for the nation and the world,


Blog Widget by LinkWithin