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 NotMittRomney.com Has Already Voted For Mitt Romney; Former Libertarian candidate: Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for libertarians.

Nonsense: Politicizing the tragedy in Tucson

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Loughner

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) remains in critical condition after being shot in the head by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011. (GiffordsForCongress.com/Mamta Popat, AP)

The atmosphere surrounding the Tea Party has been ruthlessly blamed. But assassination attempts and lone gunmen are not 21st century phenomena. What age-old train of thought did Jared Loughner actually express?

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was greeting constituents during a “Congress on Your Corner” meeting at a Safeway supermarket in Tucson, Arizona on Saturday morning when bloodshed interrupted. Lone gunman Jared Lee Loughner (age 22) shot Giffords in the head and continued the rampage by shooting a total of 19 people, murdering at least 6.The dead include conservative U.S. District Judge John Roll and nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green.

Attempts to politicize the horror came absurdly fast. On the internet, opponents of the Tea Party movement could be found lambasting Sarah Palin and other conservative communicators for inciting the attack.

They spoke too soon, of course. Loughner turns out to be a textbook case of the social misfit suspect – who otherwise appears to be identified as a left-wing atheist obsessed with conspiracy theories. His odd mix of favorite literature includes “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf”; he also posted a video on YouTube that scrolls the following words (amidst other incoherent ramblings):

“If I define terrorist then a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

I define terrorist.

Thus, a terrorist is a person who employs terror or terrorism, especially as a political weapon.

If you call me a terrorist then the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem. You call me a terrorist.

Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.

Thus, the argument to call me a terrorist is Ad hominem.

Every United States military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

Jared Loughner is a United States military recruit at MEPS in Phoenix. Therefore, Jared Loughner is receiving one mini bible before the tests.

I didn’t write a belief on my Army application, and the recruiter wrote on the application: None.

…In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.

No! I won’t pay debt with a currency that’s not backed by gold and silver!

No! I won’t trust in God!”

We’ve heard this Luciferian logic before. Just last year James J. Lee (the Discovery hostage taker) expressed the same no God, no government, no master but my oh-so-enlightened-self mindset before bringing an end to his own life. Such was the mindset that plagued the disturbed minds of Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and the leaders of totalitarian regimes. It is the very insane villainy that King David lamented in Psalm 14 and Psalm 53:

The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”. They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good. The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. (Psalm 14:1-3)

That passage of Scripture isn’t talking about any civil, genuine skeptics out there. Rather, these fools are the megalomaniacs who despise authority in all shape and form, beginning with hatred against God, the ultimate higher power…

Click here to continue reading at The Washington Times Communities.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Primary sources matter. Loughner disliked Giffords in 2007, BEFORE Sarah Palin appeared on the national scene and the Tea Party erupted.

UPDATE – 10:42 P.M. – More information on Loughner from the Associated Press:

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — At an event roughly three years ago, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords took a question from Jared Loughner, the man accused of trying to assassinate her and killing six other people. According to two of his high school friends the question was essentially this: “What is government if words have no meaning?”

Loughner was angry about her response — she read the question and had nothing to say.

“He was like … ‘What do you think of these people who are working for the government and they can’t describe what they do?'” one friend told The Associated Press on Sunday. “He did not like government officials, how they spoke. Like they were just trying to cover up some conspiracy.”

Both friends spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they wanted to avoid the publicity surrounding the case. To them, the question was classic Jared: confrontational, nonlinear and obsessed with how words create reality.

The friends’ comments paint a picture bolstered by other former classmates and Loughner’s own Internet postings: that of a social outcast with nihilistic, almost indecipherable beliefs steeped in mistrust and paranoia…

…Loughner had at least one other contact with Giffords. Investigators said they carried out a search warrant at Loughner’s home and seized a letter addressed to him from Giffords’ congressional stationery in which she thanked him for attending a “Congress on your Corner” event at a mall in Tucson in 2007. Saturday’s shooting occurred at a similar event.

Other evidence seized from his home included an envelope from a safe with messages such as “I planned ahead,” ”My assassination” and the name “Giffords” next to what appears to be Loughner’s signature. Police say he purchased the Glock pistol used in the attack in November…

…Mistrust of government was Loughner’s defining conviction, the friends said. He believed the U.S. government was behind 9/11, and worried that governments were maneuvering to create a unified monetary system (“a New World Order currency” one friend said) so that social elites and bureaucrats could control the rest of the world…

…An ardent atheist, he began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the government and the monotony of modern life.

“He didn’t want people to wake up and do the same thing every day. He wanted more chaos, he wanted less regularity,” one friend said.

The friends said Loughner told anyone who would listen that the world we see does not exist, that words have no meaning — and that the only way to derive meaning was during sleep. Loughner began obsessing about a practice called lucid dreaming, in which people try to actively control their sleeping world…

…When other students, always seated, read their poems, Coorough said Loughner “would laugh at things that you wouldn’t laugh at.” After one woman read a poem about abortion, “he was turning all shades of red and laughing,” and said, “Wow, she’s just like a terrorist, she killed a baby,” Coorough said.

“He appeared to be to me an emotional cripple or an emotional child,” Coorough said. “He lacked compassion, he lacked understanding and he lacked an ability to connect.”

Cates said Loughner “didn’t have the social intelligence, but he definitely had the academic intelligence.”

Read more here.

UPDATE – January 16, 2011 – Ann Coulter pointed out that some inaccuracies may be in that report:

“In the most bald-faced lie I have ever read in The New York Times — which is saying something — that paper implied Loughner is a pro-life zealot. This is the precise opposite of the truth.

Only because numerous other news outlets, including ABC News and The Associated Press, reported the exact same shocking incident in much greater detail — and with direct quotes — do we know that the Times’ rendition was complete bunk.

ABC News reported: “One Pima Community College student, who had a poetry class with Loughner later in his college career, said he would often act ‘wildly inappropriate.’

“‘One day (Loughner) started making comments about terrorism and laughing about killing the baby,’ classmate Don Coorough told ABC News, referring to a discussion about abortions. ‘The rest of us were looking at him in shock … I thought this young man was troubled.’

“Another classmate, Lydian Ali, recalled the incident as well.

“‘A girl had written a poem about an abortion. It was very emotional and she was teary eyed and he said something about strapping a bomb to the fetus and making a baby bomber,’ Ali said.””

Read more here.

Do Dreams Come True?

As this Election comes to an end, I would like to share with readers why such political experiences so deeply affect me.

I didn’t think anything of politics and government until Election 2000, when I was a 10 year old child.  I didn’t really have a clue about what was going on initially, but I heard my parents talking about the Spiritual significance of the time and why we so badly needed a godly leader in the White House.

I didn’t sit around contemplating or interpreting what was going on in the news…until I had a strange, out-of-the-blue dream.

Tuesday, October 24, 2000

“Last night, I had a dream.  It was that George W. Bush and Al Gore were standing on maps.  At first, it seemed like Al Gore’s map was filling up with votes.  But, he seemed afraid of something, I don’t know what.  When I looked at George W. Bush’s map, votes practically covered almost all America.  After having this dream, I feel that George W. Bush will win the Election for sure!”

In my second, more private journal I included further details about the dream.

“One night in October, I had a dream.  George W. Bush and Al Gore were standing on maps.  Every time they were colored in, it represented the number of votes they got.  At first, it looked like Al Gore would win.  In panic, I looked over to G.W. Bush’s map and he won by just a little!  Hopefully, G.W. Bush will win.”

Then, on Election Day…

Tuesday, November 7, 2000

“The Election – finally – the day all waited for.  All seemed like in my dream – Al Gore seeming to take over when it all came down to Florida.  But then, there was a toss-up.  ‘Too close to call’ it said on the news.  I was not feeling good today.  So I missed some of it.”

If I recall correctly, Florida had flashed back and forth from red to blue to red in my dream.  I was sick with a bad sore throat and fever on Election Day.  Mom came in my bedroom and prayed with me about the Election.  I kept insisting, ever since Oct. 24th, that Bush was going to win and that was all there was to it. 

I was later amazed to see that the very electoral map pictured in my dream appeared after the Election.  The LORD had allowed me, a clueless child, to see what would happen.  Oh, how I miss having the innocent faith of a child.  A child who awoke one morning and praised GOD in complete trust that regardless of what the media was saying, Bush would be the winner – but by “just a little”.

Shortly after the map dream I had a more comical sort of dream.  I dreamed that we were decorating the house for Christmas when suddenly George W. Bush and Al Gore came through our front door and set up their podiums in our living room.  We were all bewildered, especially my parents, who insisted that the Election was supposed to be over with before Christmas season.  I later figured out the meaning of that one – the Election was still going on in December!

During the 2004 Election my dreams were more vague, but several featured Bush winning.  One strange dream featured Bush winning the Election and my family and I visiting the White House.  When we were at the White House, strange things indicated that Pope John Paul II and Yasser Arafat died.  Perhaps needless to say, those people rarely crossed my mind.  However, after President Bush’s reelection, both of them did indeed die.  Another interesting twist to include – around the time of that dream, my sister Rachel and I both dreamed on the same night that Mom had another baby, and it was a boy and we named him Benjamin.  That came to pass too. :)

This year dreams seem to be held back from me.  The closest one to predicting the Election came in September.  My dream actually began with me arguing with a guy about the Election over the internet (oh my…it just dawned on me…that IS scarily accurate).

Sunday, September 21, 2008

“Restful Sunday.  Read the BIBLE and sang songs.  Had a dream last night pertaining to national politics – celebrations of McCain-Palin inaugural in Alaska, prayers of Thanksgiving in advance for victory morning after the Election – Mom, Rachel and I were running to see the news – I was coming last, hearing the cheers from the TV in the master bedroom as I ran down the stairs – but the further down the stairs I got, the more my fear and doubt rose, which ended my dream.  How could I be so convinced and then lose faith?  I mustn’t do that again…I long for the faith of my childhood.”

The one especially encouraging part of the dream was of my entire family rejoicing in the brisk fall air outside.  It went something like Psalm 126:

“When the LORD brought back the captive ones of Zion, we were like those who dream.  Then our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue with joyful shouting; then they said among the nations, “The LORD has done great things for them.”  The LORD has done great things for us; we are glad.

Restore our captivity, O LORD, as the streams in the South.  Those who sow in tears shall reap with joyful shouting.  He who goes to and fro weeping, carrying his bag of seed, shall indeed come again with a shout of joy, bringing his sheaves with him.”

Let us all, whether we agree regarding this Election or not, pray that the LORD JESUS CHRIST’s will be done.

PRAYERS FOR THE NATION AND THE WORLD,

~Amanda~

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, www.dutchsheets.org.

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.
http://www.cbn.com/media/index.aspx?s=%2fvod%2f30DaysPrayer_DutchSheets_102308

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.

OBAMA:

“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.”

McCAIN:

“[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.”

PRAYERS FOR THE NATION AND THE WORLD,

~Amanda~

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!

THOUGH YOU HAVE ARGUED THAT MCCAIN IS UNWORTHY OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVED BALDWIN OR ANY OTHER THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE TO BE WORTHY OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

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.

THAT IS WHY MCCAIN IS THE ONLY VIABLE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN THIS ELECTION WORTHY OF AND CAPABLE OF WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE.

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.

PRAYERS FOR THE NATION AND THE WORLD,

~Amanda Christine Read~

DISPELLING THE TOP SEVEN MYTHS OF ELECTION 2008

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.” (Wikipedia.org)

“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.” (Answers.com)

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.

Republican:

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. “

Constitution:

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.

“It is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”

- Matthew 4:7