While I am not interested in as ridiculous a tirade as Focus on the Family engaged in during this stupidity, I would like to make a few interpretations and predictions regarding the next four years of the Barack Obama administration.
First of all - a note to all you conservatives who voted for McCain and also Bush in 2004 - I am blaming you. This is what a voting philosophy of the lesser of two evils has gotten you. You marginalised and mocked the one man who even held a glimmer of old-right economic values and fiscal conservatism. Take a moment to consider the so-called “conservative” candidates you’ve supported as the lesser of two evils since Ronald Regan:
- John McCain
- George W. Bush
- George W. Bush
- Bob Dole
- George Bush
- George Bush
Are you now surprised that America, which generally supports you when you campaign for things like balanced budgets, lower taxes, private property rights, civil liberties, families and free-enterprise, has now elected the party of one of the most unpopular congresses in modern US history? You have allowed your party to be completely subjugated by a neo-conservative group of right-wing socialists - and this is what you deserve - a taste of your own medicine. I washed my hands of the GOP five years ago, partly because I saw this coming - it was an inevitable correction in the political marketplace.
Any changes that Obama now makes using expanded executive power is your fault. You gave George W. Bush unprecedented power in the executive to do all manner of unconstitutional things - now, the man you most fear inherits that power. You had the mandate to reverse the power of the executive branch and you expanded it more than ever - and Obama will now wield that with a vengeance.
In fact, you have set a precedent for using a congressional majority to vest power in the executive, because by circumventing the legislative branch, political agendas can now go through faster and with more force. Welcome to the Obama administration, because of the power you gave George W. Bush, expect the next 40 years of the left-wing agenda to come to pass in eight.
I suspect this includes:
Wage and price controls - When the economy continues to go sour after the bailout fix has run out, including massive inflation, Obama will use his expanded executive power to control wages and prices. There will be record unemployment, increased poverty and shortages of gas, food, healthcare and other essentials.
More wars - towards the end of the Obama administration, I expect him to send in troops or air strikes in some new country - probably Pakistan or Iran. Who knows, if the economy gets bad enough, Obama might very well start WWIII with Russia by sending troops to “protect democracy” in Eastern Europe.
Universal Healthcare - This will still take congress’s approval, but Obama will get some form of universal healthcare - putting the final nail in the coffin of what used to be the greatest and most innovative system in the world.
More Federal Control in Education - Again conservatives, this is your fault. You encouraged Bush to dramatically increase federal involvement in education. Now enjoy Obama using this new power to expand the role of the Department of Education.
I am glad that Obama has won. I can’t imagine what another four years of neo-conservative power-mongering would bring. Hopefully conservatives find a moment to humbly reflect in all of this - and repent of just how far they’ve fallen. Their zeal for power overshadowed their traditions and principles.
It might take another new-deal and depression for them to get it - but so be it. This may not be the candidate you directly voted for all these years, but he is the unintended consequence of every vote for a right-wing, neo-conservative socialist as the lesser of two evils. Conservatives: you deserve Barack Obama.
Ah yes, more Ron Paul as Savior. Very classy.
Did you read the piece?
Dude…that was hardcore.
I will disagree with you on one of your predictions, though, and that is gas shortages. At least for his first term, that won’t happen. The price of oil is going down. It will bottom out at around $50. The market is being flooded with supply. This is being done to drive down the price and undercut Arab oil. Lindsey Williams, the Baptist preacher and former chaplain for ARCO announced this on July 28 per his inside contacts, when oil was like $130 or something. Of course, most people would have thought he was a nut at the time, but yesterday I drove by a filling station and gas was $1.99. I could hardly believe it. He’s been making predictions like this for twenty-five years and has seldom been wrong. Of course, there are other reasons for gas shortages, but I don’t see any potential shortages as being related to price controls.
I won’t go so far as to say I’m glad Obama got elected, but hopefully I won’t have to hear the word “maverick” for a while. That was really starting to grate on me…seriously.
I would guess Obama is more likely to send troops to Darfur than to Iran or Pakistan. I’m skeptical that Obama would want to enact wage and price controls, and I doubt Congress and the courts would permit him to do so. Universal health care is definitely doable though, if Obama is smart about it. That scares me. Once we go down that path there’s no turning back.
Obama declaring he would invade Pakistan.
He has been less hawkish on Iran, but will not rule out an invasion if they don’t comply with inspectors.
My prediction on wage and price controls presumes that the economy takes a nose dive and the currency begins to inflate again. As it appears that the Fed is not raising interest rates to 15% and instead lowering them to possibly zero in the future - this is just a matter of time. We have many precedents (including two in the last century in the US: FDR and Nixon) that shows this will be a likely response.
Talking tough by promising to pursue al Qaeda into Pakistan is a bit different from threatening to invade Pakistan. It’s still an affront to their national sovereignty, but let’s not take things out of context.
As for Iran, I could see air strikes but not an invasion. I suspect Israel will act before the US does, though. And of course he can’t publicly rule anything out–that would be irresponsible.
OUR NATION FALLS TO COMMUNISM
WE ARE FURTHER DIVIDED
We are crying tears of fear, for our precious republic has fallen. It has, in one single act of horrific tragedy worse than 911, been completely handed over to the foreign oligarchy.
Americans, do you not know what have you done? I promise you that you will reap what you have sown.
It only took 50 years for our country to be “taken from within”. Why and how did this happen?
I blame the ill informed, the uneducated, and those who should have been the keepers of the republic but sold out.
We allowed the UN in our schools and they brainwashed our children.
We did not stick to our GOP principles and went along with this.
We allowed ourselves to be censored, words could not be said, until it was too late.
We now in the USA fear for our freedom, jobs, money, homes, safety, and OUR VERY LIVES. We wonder who will be led to the concentration camps first by the armed citizens security force formed by the government puppet who completely LACKS CHARACTER of any kind.
THIS RACIST DIVIDER IS NOT MY PRESIDENT.
Worse than 9/11? I don’t know about all that.
Darius wrote: “Ah yes, more Ron Paul as Savior. Very classy.”
Ah yes, the defensive attitude of one convicted. You read the piece, realized that it was a mirror, and now you lashed out at what you picture was an easy target…someone who had no chance of winning. Like the man who hears the sermon at church, realizes it is about him, then proceeds to pick apart the pastor/priest and the church in order to misdirect his own guilt. It’s a defense mechanism, Darius. It’s okay, we understand.
Your comment is further proof of how far the cracker has fallen from the box in terms of modern day conservatism. You’d rather defend quasi-socialism of a man you really didn’t support much (McCain) instead of recognizing that indeed it was people like YOU, after years and years of compromising your own beliefs in order to prevent the “worst” from happening, that have now handed your own ultimate evil to the nation on a bed carefully constructed and made by your own years of undoing. As Colin so eloquently stated, it was people like YOU that stood quietly (and often defended) the expansion of federal powers because it suited YOU at the time. Well, those powers have been handed to someone else, and now we face the consequences. So yeah, thanks for that. Oh, and keep relying on the “Ron Paul is YOUR saviour” line…which none of us said. We merely point out that he was a humble, TRUE conservative, and the entire party ripped him to shreds while supporting a warmongering reluctant socialist who would have merely continued the current federalist expansion and heavy spending of the past 8 years. Well done.
But seriously, keep up with the defense mechanism. Whatever you need to feel better about yourself. After all, the article had NOTHING to do with Ron Paul (besides one link without a name in it), but you chose to completely misrepresent an article that you (probably) took personally. As you should have. And modern day republicans wonder why just about EVERYONE can’t stand them….
You have no freaking clue what you’re talking about, Ornot. Of course, all of you libertarian nutjobs are the same. I never ever have said that McCain was a true conservative, so don’t start those lies, it’s pathetic. The ones who chose McCain were not conservatives, if you ever bothered to look at the primary results rather than bloviating ignorantly like a moron. In every early primary, McCain lost the Republican and conservative vote. But he won the Democratic and Independent ones in those states that allowed cross-over voting.
Continue down your road to irrelevancy, it only helps Republicans. Your small, diseased outlook on life and politics will go the way of all other political fads.
You know, none of you hardcore Christian libertarians (Jew not included) even once mentioned the issue of abortion during this election, but you have the gall to self-righteously condemn those of us who are still fighting for the unborn. You are no better than Karl Marx, seeing everything through an economic lens so that anything that doesn’t fit in it doesn’t matter to you. That is why libertarianism is a stink in the nostrils of most Christians and conservatives.
“You know, none of you hardcore Christian libertarians (Jew not included) even once mentioned the issue of abortion during this election, but you have the gall to self-righteously condemn those of us who are still fighting for the unborn.”
Well, I don’t know if I qualify as a “hardcore Christian libertarian” or not, but abortion has always been an important issue for me. In fact, the candidate I initially supported (Ron Paul) and the candidate I eventually voted for (Chuck Baldwin) were both pro-life.
I’m more directing my ire toward Colin and Ornot for their sanctimonious attitudes. However, Chris, please explain to me why third-party voting is anything but just plain dumb? Why didn’t you just write yourself in, since you agree with your own policies 100% (I assume :))? Or is third-party voting a method of political therapy, a way to self-righteously pat oneself on the back for not having to make a hard choice?
Mostly though, I am more disgusted with the tone of this article (and other recent ones by Colin). He repeatedly implies or outright states that Christians who voted for McCain have no integrity, yet he claims to be a Christian who loves his brothers. Hate-filled rants against other Christians doesn’t sound like Christ-like behavior to me.
California went over 20% pro-Obama. Voting for a “lesser of two evils” would have been meaningless since my vote COULDN’T help regardless. Instead I voted third party to express my distaste with the main parties. Honestly though, if the Republicans continue their leftward shift they will likely lose me regardless. Even in a swing state, voting third party shows that the main candidates failed to convince you they would be a satisfactory candidate. This requires the party platform to be shifted for the next cycle. This year, the odds of Obama not winning no matter what were basically nil. There was no reason whatsoever not to vote third party to express where you think the parties should shift their platforms for next time.
Colin is merely engaging in partisan hackery. Look at most of our posts in this thread, and you’ll see that we are all doing it.
Interestingly, most of us probably have very similar political goals (at least in the short run), but rather than cooperatively discussing how those goals can best achieve those we prefer to call one another names and say that those who disagree are idiots. Considering that such terminology is reliably used by you to describe anyone you disagree with, I think you might want to examine your own eyes before trying to help Colin with his own splinters. We are all guilty on this count, and I see no value in placing blame on any individuals. Once we are ourselves no longer engaging in partisan hackery, we can address others among us who are doing the same.
I voted for Bob Barr, who is pro-life. It’s good to have a pro-life Libertarian to vote for. They are too rare.
Darius:
I supported Ron Paul, who is pro-life. Yet, you continue to harangue him AND us who supported him for “wasting our votes” and other such nonsense for the past year. In fact, Ron Paul’s stance on abortion is far more reasonable and solid than John McCain’s. The reason we don’t spend so much time on abortion, is that compared to other issues, THE PRESIDENT HAS THE LEAST EFFECT ON THAT ISSUE. We’ve been over this a million times.
Let me ask you a question, though. YOU have solidly stated that you don’t find McCain to be a conservative, and that you don’t even like him that much. Yet I ask you…did you vote for him? Did you throw your support behind him in order to keep the “worse Obama” out of office? Did you? If you did, then you have zero leg to stand on. Then YOU are part of the problem. If you voted for McCain, then you supported him. Funny…I supported Ron Paul’s economic and foreign policy, his abortion stance, and him as a person. I didn’t like his illegal alien/immigration stance, but no one is 100% perfect, and I didn’t find it to be much of an issue. Yet, you don’t like McCain much, yet you voted for him? (I’m assuming, as you make fun of us for voting third party, and you don’t seem the “not vote” type of guy) You say I’m not fighting for the unborn? I’m Karl Marx now? So my vote for a candidate that I stand behind is less integrity than you voted strategically while compromising a majority of your political beliefs and stances? LOL You are a funny guy, Darius. Seriously, hilarious.
“THE PRESIDENT HAS THE LEAST EFFECT ON THAT ISSUE.”
This is such BS, and you know it. We’ve gone over this before, but let me remind you since you seem to have really short term memory loss. Because of Bush (you know, our PRESIDENT), we have a partial-birth abortion ban. Because of Bush (again, our PRESIDENT), we have two judges who are more likely to overturn Roe v Wade than their predecessors. Because of Bush (again.. nevermind, I’m guessing you’re catching on by now), $60 million have gone to crisis pregnancy centers. Now what was that you were saying about presidents not affecting abortion???
Darius wrote: “Your small, diseased outlook on life and politics will go the way of all other political fads.”
Was this directed at neo-cons?
Darius wrote: “Hate-filled rants against other Christians doesn’t sound like Christ-like behavior to me.”
Irony. Lost. On. This. Thread.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
These RINOS have been trying to debate on liberal terms.
Prescription drugs, Amnesty, Bailout Bill, campaign finance.
Republicans have accepted the notion that a compromise is somewhere between the status quo and what the libs want.
The status quo is unacceptable to me too.
I want less government.
Less spending.
More individual freedom.
Everything else is an extension of the basics.
Question: If voting third party is wasting your vote, wouldn’t voting for McCain also be wasting your vote? I mean, they all lost, and none of them had a realistic chance of winning.
I don’t know if it’s just this election, but I’ve read literally dozens (well, at least one dozen) articles by Christian columnists and bloggers about abortion. They all state that you can’t be a Bible-believing Christian and vote for a pro-choice candidate. Period. Not even for dogcatcher.
I’m not so adamant. I think Christians shouldn’t delude themselves–Obama will make things worse, not better as some Christians are falsely claiming. And Christians should not be complacent about abortion, because it is a grave moral sin. But it’s reasonable for a Christian to examine a particular race and decide that a pro-choice candidate is acceptable because he won’t have any significant impact on the issue. E.g., I can’t see any problem with voting a pro-choice person in as state Railroad Commissioner or something.
As for the President, I’m not so sure the whole Roe v Wade issue is the most critical battleground in the abortion fight. Frankly, I think the whole strategy of going after Roe is wrong. We need to be working towards a Constitutional Amendment. That’s the only way to make real lasting progress, I think. The rest is just small potatoes. But it appears that the whole pro-life strategy is centered on the Supreme Court, so it’s important to consider that when voting for President.
Jew, can we work toward a Constitutional Amendment before Roe v Wade is overturned? Wouldn’t that be getting the cart before the horse?
No, that wouldn’t be putting the cart before the horse. In California they just passed a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. They didn’t wait around to get the California Supreme Court to reserve its ruling on gay marriage. We can work toward a constitutional amendment banning abortion without worrying about overturning Roe v. Wade first.
In the US, the Constitution has priority over the Supreme Court. If the Constitution clearly banned abortion, any past Supreme Court rulings wouldn’t matter in the slightest. Jew is right, the way this should be addressed is through an amendment. Has there been any work done on gathering the support needed for such an amendment?
Has there been any work done on gathering the support needed for such an amendment?
Yes, please tell us. I’ll be glad to tackle Indiana.
Concerning this post and all deeply-held beliefs by Christians about how government and politics should be “fixed” - here is a slightly different take. Contributed by one of my pastor cousins, during an email discussion among our extended family about voting pragmatically vs. voting one’s ideals.
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2008/3347_Let_Christians_Vote_As_Though_They_Were_Not_Voting/
Darius said:
“This is such BS, and you know it. We’ve gone over this before, but let me remind you since you seem to have really short term memory loss. Because of Bush (you know, our PRESIDENT), we have a partial-birth abortion ban. Because of Bush (again, our PRESIDENT), we have two judges who are more likely to overturn Roe v Wade than their predecessors. Because of Bush (again.. nevermind, I’m guessing you’re catching on by now), $60 million have gone to crisis pregnancy centers. Now what was that you were saying about presidents not affecting abortion???”
Darius, since Roe vs Wade in 1973, there have been 23 years of Republican presidential rule. Twenty three. In that time, we have succeeded in a partial-birth abortion ban act in 2003 (which bans 0.17% of all abortions performed in the United States) and granting federal funding to crisis pregnancy centers. Oh yeah, and MAYBE we MIGHT have a CHANCE of overturning Roe vs Wade, if we can just get the right judges, and then get a vote. Oh, and if we can just find a government that actually cares post-election.
So in other words, I’m still right, Darius. The president doesn’t have much effect, because it isn’t such a big issue after all post-election. I mean, it’s not like John McCain REALLY cares. If he did, why didn’t he ever vote for Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act? In fact, when the Republicans controlled both the House, the Senate AND the White House…why was this bill ignored and never passed? I mean, they could have, if they wanted to.
Wait, didn’t John McCain vote for Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Didn’t he repeatedly vote in favor of federal funding to Planned Parenthood (HR 3010 - HHS Appropriations Bill)? So again, I ask, what did abortion have ANYTHING to do with this recent election, or anything to do with your decision, as he is clearly NOT a pro-life advocate in voting record.
And again, you never answered my questions, Darius. You instead picked one sentence out of my paragraph, ignored the true point, and got all inflamed. So I ask…did you or did you not vote for John McCain? If so, has not John McCain’s voting record been clearly NOT pro-life? If so, then why are you calling ME a nutjob? I’m not sure I clearly understand any of your reasoning, and again want to know why you so vehemently attack us when we even mention Ron Paul…especially when the entire article never mentions his name (just a link), and had nothing at all to do with Ron Paul. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I merely ask you to once again answer my question. If you choose not to, then at least say so.
Jew can step in here too, since he’s a more neutral party, but McCain’s record was clearly PRO-LIFE (with the exception of embryonic stem cell research). That is not debatable.
I “vehemently” attacked you for mentioning Ron Paul? I just sarcastically called the article “classy.” What I took issue with was the tone of the article and the implication from your libertarian snobs that all Christians who don’t support your anti-pragmatic politics is without integrity and just plain stupid and evil. I have never called anyone evil for believing differently than me (at least, not Christians brothers or sisters). And I loathe any attempt at doing so. We should take this day to acknowledge that God has sovereignly chosen Obama as our next president, that there are still great things in our country and world, and that this doesn’t stop us as Christians from our first calling: spreading the Gospel. Ranting and raving after Ron Paul doesn’t win an election is not becoming of Christians.
Wow. So much in the comments to address. I will try and sort through it.
This article, plus the only other recent one you may be referring to says nothing like what you have pulled out here. Here are sum summary points of these articles for those who are having trouble understanding:
- voting for the “lesser of two evils” is unwise
- supporting poor GOP candidates has led to Obama and the democratic majority congress
- Supporting Bush has led to expanded federal and executive power, which Obama will now wield (listed possible ways)
- this result was an inevitable conclusion to the “lesser of two evils” philosophy
and…
- Ron Paul is supporting Chuck Baldwin
- Christians are mistakenly supporting unbiblical positions to get conservatives elected
- the GOP is no longer a viable force for good - they are to compromised and power-hungry
- the GOP-base has proven that, in general, it does not really care about addressing Christian values, but merely in security power
- the irony in Paul choosing Baldwin, is that it reveals how important life and social issues are to Paul
I challenge anyone (not just Darius) to find evidence of “hate-filled rants” in these pieces. There is no question that I am not pleased with conservatives and “conservative Christians” - but I don’t hate them. I have cited many evidences of why I think my opinions are correct on the matter, and these two articles highlight where I think conservative Christians have gone wrong. I suspect that ignorance, pride and a lack of eternal focus has generally bankrupted the politics of many conservative Christians. These are strong words and strong assertions, especially against a stubborn people set in their ways, and they put me at a place of isolation within my “own people” - but I say these things out of love and a desire that there would be change - even when the movement seems completely hopeless.
You might disagree with my conclusions. However, the language you have used to “argue” against them kind of proves my point.
I supported the most pro-life candidate on the ballot, without question. Ron Paul has done more to fight against abortion than anyone in the GOP (many of whom I suspect use the issue purely to get votes - I think Ornot’s summary of GOP rule versus abortion restrictions does a good job). Many of the GOP leaders who claimed to be pro-life voted against Ron Paul’s HR 2597 the “Sanctity of Life Act” and HR 300, the “We the People Act” which would have instantly overturned Roe v. Wade and done more in one act than all of the 23 years of GOP rule combined.
When Ron Paul was gone, I supported Bob Barr because of his strong pro-life stance (among other things).
If I remember correctly, popular support is behind overturning Roe v. Wade. The GOP has no excuse for being in power for so long, several times with full mandates, and not doing more on abortion. Clearly a new strategy is needed - is this not obvious?
I find it ironic that disagreeing with the current failed legacy of anti-abortion tactics constitutes being “like Karl Marx” or even not addressing the issue. Just because I do not agree that 23 years of trying to stack the supreme court is the way to go.
So many babies have died while conservative Christians (not politicians) do lip service to the issue with this failed strategy, which I suspect has been sold to these people merely as a means of getting elected. I think much more could be done by obvious, obvious steps:
- constitutional amendment
- act defining life as beginning at conception
- act removing supreme court’s jurisdiction
- volunteering at crisis pregnancy centres
- donating to crisis pregnancy centres
Hoping that the following cosmic events align:
- very conservative supreme court
- very activist pro-life supreme court
- legitimate challenge against abortion
- challenge making it to the supreme court while “conservative, activist” court is seated
- getting it overturned
- winning hundreds of appeals
- duplicating the event 50 times in each state
is a waste of time. Is this not evident? Am I like Karl Marx for questioning this process?
Darius, my apologies for not being clear, as I was referring to the past two years where you have indeed opposed our Ron Paul support rather vehemently. I wasn’t just referring to the most recent comment, which indeed was just a sarcastic jibe, you are correct.
I think Colin re-summed up my points rather well. I think the GOP’s stance on abortion has been poor, despite your attempts to prove the opposite. This is what I’ve been saying for years…Republicans had a majority in Senate, House and the White House….yet they managed to ignore abortion almost completely. In fact, they ignored one of their own who actually came UP with an act that would have ended “abortion on demand” and defined life at conception. It was IGNORED. Instead, they expanded the expanse of the federal government by greater than 50% (I think only FDR has expanded it more), tripled our national debt, etc etc. Why was abortion ignored? Because as I, and Colin have stated, it’s an ELECTION issue to them. It’s emotional, it’s passionate, it can often sway many voters.
I’m not sure you can defend John McCain’s stance on abortion so strongly, Darius. As I said, he voted on a bill that gave federal money appropriations to support planned parenthood. Heck, I even named the bill! In 1993 and 1994, he voted FOR the appointment of Ginsburg and Breyer, two PRO-CHOICE judges. How can that be explained? Like Colin and I have said, his pro-life stance is not only shaky, but his voting record isn’t all that hot, either.
Again, Darius. I ask you to answer my question that I asked a few posts ago. Are you going to ignore it?
What strikes me as ironic is that so many so-called conservatives always criticize judges for “legislating from the bench”, yet they fail to even formulate a strategy to prevent this where abortion is concerned. Instead they leave it up to the courts, whose actual function is to interpret the law. It seems quite logical to me that if a law plainly outlawed abortion, “activist judges” wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
“I will say it straight out: any Christian or conservative who supports John McCain has no principles left worth defending!”
Colin, this is from that article. It was called out by more than just myself as unworthy of print on this site. Another way to say that is that anyone who supported McCain has no integrity. Perhaps you should read your own articles.
“Let me ask you a question, though. YOU have solidly stated that you don’t find McCain to be a conservative, and that you don’t even like him that much. Yet I ask you…did you vote for him?”
Sorry, I thought this was a rhetorical question, since it is obvious from my comments that I voted for McCain. Do you not admit that Obama is worse than McCain? It would seem obvious that he is, especially on social issues like abortion, where McCain is clearly Obama’s moral superior. This is what I believe regarding McCain: he is a flawed candidate who if it were not for abortion, I may have not voted for. But since I care that millions of babies are dying and we likely have an opportunity to replace the two most liberal judges on the SCOTUS in the next 8 years, it would seem wise and prudent to do whatever we can to get someone who at least has some chance of appointing conservative judges. Now, with Obama in office, we’ve lost all the momentum that Bush gave us in the last 8 years. It’s disheartening to see, but not as much as it is to see Christians like yourself so delude themselves that they think they’ve made a good decision to support Obama, which is what you did when you cast a vote for no one or for Barr. Exactly what did you accomplish by voting for Barr? .5% of the vote or whatever he got is not enough to get noticed by anyone. We had our chance during the primaries, but the Dems and Independents voted in McCain. You change the parties, you don’t go the third party route and become irrelevant (and help the liberals).
That said, I am partly happy that McCain didn’t win since he won’t pull the Republican Party Left on economic issues. Of course, I’m not sure that they won’t still view this election as an indication that they need to go socialistic to stay viable.
““I will say it straight out: any Christian or conservative who supports John McCain has no principles left worth defending!”
Colin, this is from that article. It was called out by more than just myself as unworthy of print on this site. Another way to say that is that anyone who supported McCain has no integrity. Perhaps you should read your own articles.”
You’re not seriously attributing that quote to Colin, are you? That’s from Chuck Baldwin.
Umm, he linked to it in an approving manner. Why did he quote from the guy then???????????????????????
Darius, you could just admit that you were wrong or that you spoke before thinking, but you seem to insist on arguing with nothing in your corner but rhetoric. I mean this seriously, please consider reading some proverbs with an open mind on the subject of speaking and how a person should conduct their speech. I also encourage you to read on pride (no question we all could benefit from this), as I think I have noticed a strong pattern of refusal to admit error, apologise or even acknowledge ignorance.
First, no one said it was “unworthy of print.” You said that you didn’t like it and Jew said (rough paraphrase) that it was a “foolish” idea from Baldwin. You don’t see me saying I agree with him on that particular point? Again, you should really acknowledge that you either make things up wilfully or ignorantly when you argue.
If I can be ascribed “hate-filled rants” because of quotes from others in my articles, why don’t I just own up to the following statements:
“God damn America”
“We have to stop all legal immigration except for the — for people coming into this country as family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees.”
“A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States.”
“I’m an advocate of universal nation service, not by mandating it, but one of the things I’m missing in our country is the shared experience… I want to see every American given the opportunity to serve their country in some way.”
After all, because these quotations are in my articles, I must agree with them. Because I must agree with them, they must be my own words. Because they are strong/radical/controversial statements - they must be “hate-filled rants.” Because of of these are true - they must be my “hate filled rants.”
How about you admit that you were just talking nonsense and being sensational, rather than try and defend a point that doesn’t exist?
One last thing Ornot… do you know what Obama has said will be his very first act as President? Signing the Freedom of Choice Act, which will abolish all limits on abortion, such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. And you thought that Presidents don’t affect abortion… how foolish.
Darius, you have then proved my point and Colin’s point. You disagree with just about ANYTHING McCain stands for, but since he was “better” and “could possibly win”, you compromised a majority of your belief system. While you may feel vilified in your vote in the defense of the unborn, you and everyone who votes like you, are indeed the reason that the Republican party has moved so far beyond its original platform that it is nearly unrecognizable. THAT is what Colin was saying…you compromised and over the years, we have the shift we now see. It didn’t pay off this election, and now the unprecedented political powers voted in by the GOP (for their own use) are now in the hands of the “opposition”.
Please, though, spare me the “I actually voted for the liberals” schtick. I didn’t. I actually, conscientiously, didn’t vote. I won’t vote for Obama, as I did not support any of his platform. I didn’t vote for McCain for the same reason…hell, I don’t even find his voting record matches up to pro-life anyways! I don’t like Bob Barr, as I find it unnerving that he “saw the light” and went libertarian on short notice when there was an empty election seat to be filled. I don’t like the Constitution party, Ralph Nader is a nutjob and I obviously won’t vote Socialist party. Hence, I removed myself from this election race as I found no viable candidate that I either trusted or could stomach voting for.
Say what you will about “actually supporting Obama”, but I will answer you this. With you vote for McCain, YOU voted to support pseudo-socialistic economic principles, YOU supported more federalization and nationalization of our market. I did not. I voted my conscience in the primaries to elect a man that (while I didn’t agree 100%), I felt had the integrity AND voting record to make future decisions based on the constitution and true legality. He lost, with no help from people who poked fun at him, and now we are faced with a socialist president elect. Then again, with the federalization of banks and the nationalization of credit by the GOP, is there really much left to socialize in this country? I’m sure the Democrats will try, thanks to the momentum of the past 8 years by the Bush administration.
Like was said before, Darius…the voting record of the GOP on abortion isn’t as strong as you make it out to be. They had ALL the cards stacked in their favor, and did nearly nothing. NOTHING. With a majority of all branches, they still managed to merely pass a sparrows fart in a hurricane. But you’re right…that tiny momentum is gone now, and there is no one to blame but conservatives whose “lesser of two evils” voting technique has shifted this country to where it is now, and handed that momentum to the very powers they thought they were opposing. THAT is what this article is about, and THAT is why I wanted to hear you say that you voted for McCain. You solidly proved my point, which is why I suspect you are so defensive. As Chris A pointed out, that quote was from Chuck Baldwin, NOT Colin.
That promise by Obama confuses me. He can’t sign a bill unless Congress passes it. Neither house of Congress has passed FOCA. Unless Congress decides to pass the bill immediately after his inauguration, there’s no way Obama can sign it as his first act as President. I suppose he could sign it even if Congress doesn’t pass it, but his signature would mean nothing at that point.
And do we really think FOCA would pass Congress? The Democrats do control Congress, but the Democrats as a bloc aren’t as radical on abortion as Obama. I can’t imagine a bill so radical making it through Congress unadulturated, particularly given how spineless the Democratic party has been in recent years.
gentleman your conversation on Roe v Wade has one viewpoint that is completely overlooked, this subject is touched on in the book “freakanomics” which all of you should check out just for it’s outside the box thinking, and differing from the norm viewpoints.
if Roe v wade is overturned, the nation will start having way worse crime problems than we already do. does anybody remeber the acceleration in crime through out the 80’s and the huge problem that it was and just when all the talking heads said that it was going to get worse, all of a sudden it got better. the drop in crime was an unintended result of Roe v wade. and the drop in number of unwated births b/c unwanting mothers now had an alternative. sure we can make mothers who don’t want their children to have them anyway, what we can’t do though is make those mothers take care of thier children. adoptions will have to double or triple for those children (unwanted by thier mothers) to have a home to go to. I don’t think that will be the case at all though. what will happen is that at first we will see a huge increase in children that are put into foster care, which will be fine at first, but as the number of available foster parents dries up because the number of unwanted pregnancies will not go down just because abortion is abolished over the first 3-5 years, we will then see an increase in the amount of “state run” children’s homes across the nation, Who of any of you think this is a good way to raise children? now as those “unwanted children” start to mature, do you think that they will do good in school? do you think they will get into the best colleges? do you think they will grow up to be well mannered teenagers, and productive young adults? actually the odds are in favor, of the opposite, they will turn to crime. and what I have said so far doesn’t even touch on the amount of children who won’t make it into the safety of forster parents or state run housing, these poor souls will live thier childhood, in the slums of our inner cities, dealing on a daily basis with prostitution, drugs, and more than likely, violence. Now we all know that in every case this will not be the outcome, but if you play the odds, what’s better for our country, a few million “unborn” children, or a few million “unwanted” children, If you ask me I say Roe v. Wade was a good thing for our country, overall, a sad sad fact but it is true that sometimes the good of the many MUST outweigh the good of the few however upsetting and horrifying it may be. (I also will appologize for my spelling and grammer in this article before anyone starts to tear it apart. I’m a thinker not an english teacher)
Well, considering that abortion is murder, it’s pretty hard to make things worse by not murdering the unborn children. Every abortion is a crime against God and against mankind and against that child. It may not show up on the crime statistics put out by the US government, but it’s still murder.
Freedomnomics takes issue with the idea that abortion prevents crime. You should check it out.
A lone voice in the wilderness…
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjljMGU3ODc0YzcxMDkxYTlkYWQwOWY2NDMyZDVlYTY=
Freakonomics does indeed offer out of the box thinking. Its main shortcoming is that the “box” that it thinks “outside of” is reality. It is an interesting read in speculative fiction though, and presents an interesting approach in how statistics can be misused to support preposterous ideas.
Correlation can never prove causation, and even if the statistics 100% matched you cannot deduce much from a single test case. In order for this to be validated, you would need hundreds of cases where loosing restrictions on abortion caused immediate drops in non-abortion violent crime. As others have pointed out, even if this were 100% accurate, it still wouldn’t validate abortion. We can instantly cut recidivism rates in crime to 0% by executing all criminals for their first offense. This would also likely deter first time crime more than it is currently deterred. For those who believe in an absolute morality, the ends do not always justify the means.
There are massively long lines in the US for adopting newborn infants. In fact Waiting times for infant adoptions vary tremendously and can be as long as 2 years or more. Many agencies now involve birth parents in choosing adoptive parents and have discontinued traditional “waiting lists” (first come, first placed) because so few infants are available through agencies. For mothers with newborn babies they don’t want, these babies can be almost instantly placed.
Care of children whose parents will not provide that care is one of the few government welfare programs I strongly support. While I firmly believe that religious organizations should provide this care privately, part of government’s mandate to protect those unable to protect themselves definitely applies to children. That said, I would FAR rather see us provide any unwanted children with the best care we can possibly provide than to see us murder them as potential future criminals. While children who do not feel loved or cared about may have a higher failure rate, some do perform well and go on to create good lives for themselves.
The prison system in this country results in huge expenses and high recidivism rates. Would your ends justifies the means morality support execution on conviction for any violent crime? Most first time offenders are poor school students or dropouts. Would you support prison for those dropping out of high school without graduating? Many diseases could be cured faster with earlier and more lethal human testing. Does that end justify the means? Once you decide that human life is less important than “the good of the many”, where does it stop? The ONLY morally justifiable argument for abortion is that a pre-born human is not actually a “person”. Since personhood is not really verifiable biologically, the next best indicator is biological “separateness” of the fetus. Unfortunately this can be biologically be proven to be the moment of conception.
Note: I can also understand the use of first detectable brain waves as the “beginning of personhood” since that is consistent with our definition of death, but “head exposed to air” is such a meaningless distiction as to be ridiculous. Our current definition of “start of personhood” is “if I can’t see its head with my bare eyes then its not there”. That is a pre-school level definition of life, and not something that has any place being used in law.
I’ve read Freakonomics and I found it a very interesting read. However, even assuming correlation = causation, a lower crime rate does not validate abortion at all if you start with the assumption that abortion is murder (which is the only logical conclusion, as stated in Atanamis’ comments above). Freakonomics even states this fact. Steven Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics, has stated this in numerous interviews.
For interests sake, we could also study the crime rate in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, but would a lower crime rate during those periods validate those forms of government and what they did?
P.S. Godwin’s Law!!!!!!!1!!1
“There are massively long lines in the US for adopting newborn infants”
True and not true. There are long lines for certain babies. Like the article states people want babies like them. Most people who have spent a lot of time and money on infertility don’t want to adopt a some 16 year old crackheads baby.
Which brings me to the idea of why aren’t all the people who are firmly against abortion adopting these babies. There are something like 190 million Christians in America. Although the numbers are pretty slippery there seems to be about a million abortions a year, many of which are for termination non viable fetuses, not contraception. So why are there any contraceptive abortions at all if everyone is stepping up to the plate and acting on their beliefs? Has everyone here who opposes roe v wade adopted an unwanted child? Where are the churches? The Christian churches are sitting on a pile of money. Some of the evangelical churches practically have to weigh their money rather than count it. How many unwanted babies have they taken in?
I don’t believe in abortion as birth control, but I freely admit that I don’t oppose it enough to take in some seriously deficient baby. So I don’t feel I have the right to truly oppose Roe v Wade unless some structure is put in place to deal with the unwanted babies first. No one in the church or the republican party seems to be willing deal with how to give the unwanted babies a decent life. Forcing some totally incapable mother to have an unwanted baby therefor condemning these children to a life of poverty, drugs, and abuse certainly isn’t very christian either. Just overturning Roe v Wade isn’t the answer.
This singular focus on overturning roe v wade shows a serious bankruptcy of large scale thought on the part of both the republican party and the christian church. If there were a place in society for these children where they would be well treated then roe v wade probably would have been history long ago. The tail is wagging the dog here. This seems to me to be one of those times in history (there have been far too many) where the christian church is fixated on control, power, and hypocrisy not on honoring the principles of it’s namesake. Jesus would have offered a helping hand, not a club.
Again, you unfairly slander the Church, and may God judge you for that. Go into almost any white evangelical church today and you will see many adopted kids of other races running around. It’s true of my church and every one I’ve ever been in. There is such a thing as embodying one’s values AND voting for them. Don’t set up some false dichotomy.
Bob, that is some really profound and convicting stuff right there. I am really challenged by it. I think this really fits in with the idea of voting/proclaiming morality, while practically refusing/ignoring application.
Coulter agrees with Colin?
http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2008/11/05/the_reign_of_lame_falls_mainly_on_mccain?page=full&comments=true
Like she says, those who promoted him in the primaries are the ones at fault.
Worse still is the plight of older children in need of a loving home. Even your crackhead might decide on seeing a delicate, tender baby to keep it, and later be found an unfit parent or decide that they don’t want the child as they grow older. I firmly agree that ANY pro-lifer has a responsibility to be actively involved in adoption, foster care, and other child care programs to provide a high quality life for the children that DO need a good home. This thread is full of statements that the Republican inclusion of “pro-life” is primarily political rather than an actual support of the ideal, and this challenge highlights that fact.
If this is what is holding you back from supporting an abortion ban, it is definitely an issue that the Christian church SHOULD be fixing. I have little sympathy for the “control of my own body” approach since I feel that that control was risked when you had sex and allowed another person to become physically dependent on you for 9 months. I fully agree though that we should allow an easy surrender process that places the child in a stable loving home that will raise them to be a successful member of society.
No Darius, I just accept that the institution of Christianity as opposed to the ideal of Christianity is on occasion flawed by human failings. If you really believe the history of the church or the current church is without fault then good for you. At the very least if any church wants to interject itself into the political (and many do) realm then they should forsake their tax exempt status first. Anything less is hypocritical.
My point was that if as many people worked as long and as hard on dealing with making unwanted children wanted as they did on trying to overturn roe v wade than there would have probably been no reason for roe v wade to exist. I questioned why there wasn’t a wide spread effort toward this spearheaded by the church, not a ground up effort by the congregation. I fully realize there are some people who do adopt babies without reservation. Read me more carefully. When I said no one, I clearly meant on a leadership level.
Ok everyone, I’m a first time poster, but I just couldn’t resist leaving behind something.
What would overturning Roe do?
As best as I can determine, it would kick the whole abortion issue back over to the states. The federal government would be out of the abortion business, which would mean that NO president would have any part in determining the abortion argument.
If an uber liberal state like California can pass an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage, that tells me that we are still a nation that lives by center right principles. Take it for what it’s worth, but the best way to deal with something as contentious as this is to let the voting public decide what’s in its best interests (ie a referendum).
Some states will outlaw it and some will not. Those that do not will probably develop a burgeoning industry which will need to be regulated by the state (and possibly funded and/or run by the state as well). That will no doubt place a huge burden on the taxpayers if the state decides to throw its hat in the ring (which becomes a very slippery slope).
Unwanted pregnancies are problematic to say the least. I’m no expert here, but at some point in time the individuals responsible for trying to bring a life into this world do need to be held accountable for their indiscretion. By individuals I include both partners in the act. I cannot in all good conscience advocate telling someone when, where, why, how and with whom they should be getting intimate. But they should be made to understand the life changing ramifications of the endeavor they are about to undertake.
As for wasting votes on third party candidates, we are guaranteed the right to vote as Americans. More than just that, we have a responsibility to vote as it does determine our collective future. Begrudging someone’s views because they don’t exactly match yours does not show any sort of enlightenment, in fact it shows just the opposite.
As for what happened during this election cycle, it’s pretty obvious to even the most casual of observers. The Republican party lost ground because it lost the high ground.
The outgoing administration practiced compassionate conservatism. Compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron. It was an attempt to woo various groups by spending on programs that were supposedly near and dear to their hearts. Gone was the mantra of smaller more agile and less intrusive government and fiscal responsibility. The Republican party got lost in the woods and is still trying to find its way out.
Much to its credit (or chagrin), the Bush Administration stated up front (back during the 2000 campaign and opening days of 2001) that it had no desire to engage in nation building, but now finds itself involved in two conflicts where such a strategy is necessary to assure a successful outcome. U.S. soft power was never brought to bear in places where it would have done the most good. We are now seen as the proverbial bull in the china shop by most folks around the world.
Whatever the president elect may have promised his base in the run up to this election, it’s going to have to take a back seat to getting this country’s economy back on track. My greatest fear isn’t about what he’ll do, but what this new Congress might try to do (let’s not forget where the real power lies in this country). With guys like Chuck Schumer talking about trying to resurrect the Fairness Act not even a day after the election, this doesn’t bode well for anyone, left of center, right of center or otherwise (excluding hard left).
This is a pretty decent forum with folks talking about difficult issues. That’s good, because discourse (not disenfranchisement) is more of what we need to lead us out of the wilderness.
Thanks for the read.
Thanks for the comments Stan. Hope you stick around and continue to add your thoughts!
Great post, welcome Stan!
Not surprising, Obama has full intentions of using the executive powers given to Bush:
Interesting, isn’t it, that the media ripped on Bush when he used it, but now they are in full support mode for Obama’s use of those powers.
“Not surprising, Obama has full intentions of using the executive powers given to Bush.”
“Interesting, isn’t it, that the media ripped on Bush when he used it, but now they are in full support mode for Obama’s use of those powers.”
Not that I’m defending Obama, because I am not, but I’m not sure how either of you guys came to the conclusions that you did from the above-referenced piece. Colin, I think you’re probably right, but not for the reason stated. That quote stating, “Use of executive authority is the quickest way for a new president to exert his power…” doesn’t mean that Obama plans to use new powers usurped by Bush. In fact, Obama isn’t being quoted so his “full intentions” could not be ascertained from the quote, John Podesta is. In context, he is talking about Obama reviewing Bush’s executive orders and possibly taking action, as the current president, against them. I don’t know that this suggests abuse of presidential power.
So the media is in “full support mode for Obama’s use of those powers”? That just isn’t true. If anything, the “liberal media” is being fooled into thinking that he won’t use these powers.
I’m not saying that it is necessarily an abuse of his powers (though it might be), I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the media. They have no problem using those executive powers if they are used for their agenda.
Also, Obama appears likely to prove Ornot (and others) amazingly wrong and foolish right away. He’s going to show just how much of an effect a president has on abortion by repealing and reinstating a lot of abortion laws which Bush had curtailed or set in place.
“I’m not saying that it is necessarily an abuse of his powers (though it might be), I’m just pointing out the hypocrisy of the media.”
My point is that you haven’t demonstrated any hypocrisy of the media as it relates to their opinion of Obama’s use of power. Everything I have heard in the media suggests that they think Obama will be less authoritative than Bush. I don’t really believe that, but that’s what I seem to be hearing them say. In fact, the article Colin linked to said just that. Again, the quote suggested the possibility that he might revoke certain existing executive orders.
Atanamis wrote:
My wife volunteers as a counselor at a local Crisis Pregnancy Center. The CPC works with pregnant girls and women, to give them sound biblical counsel, and good options (like adoption, or help raising the baby, or a maternity home to go to.) They have free pregnancy tests and an ultrasound (thanks to Focus on the Family!) and all that. The CPC continues to help even after the baby is born–the women can get instruction on good parenting, they can get baby clothes and diapers and formula and everything. It’s an extraordinary ministry. It drives home to me that Christians do care about babies. It’s a real-life counter-example to the charge that Christians care only about the unborn and not about the born.
Exactly, Jew. Same is true with the CPC down the street from me, one of the most well-known centers in all America (the pro-abortion liberals even tried to get a bill into Congress due to lies about that particular center). My church supports them with significant financial and physical help, which only serves as further evidence that those who charge that the Church is not embodying their values are merely using it as a straw man to avoid the pricks of their own consciences for supporting abortion-on-demand.
I’ve used the extremely harsh treatment given to CPCs as evidence that the “pro-choice” movement is actually “pro-abortion”. If they were truly pro-choice, they would not demonize CPCs, but probably even refer people who decided to keep their baby to a CPC. Instead, organizations like planned parenthood demonize anyone who might provide support for someone keeping a child, and warn that expecting mothers shouldn’t even talk to any organization that doesn’t perform or provide referrals for abortions. CPCs are a crowning jewel in the pro-life movement.
“I’ve used the extremely harsh treatment given to CPCs as evidence that the “pro-choice” movement is actually “pro-abortion”. ”
So true. Which is why Obama is clearly pro-abortion, since he wants to cut funding to CPCs and to sign FOCA. People have the gall to tell me that he’s pro-life because he has a plan to reduce abortions by 95%. Why are Christians so gullible???
Brilliant article…
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-obama-point-2221207-left-one
Huh? What’s brilliant about it? It just talks about bush and obama meeting except one sentence.
“John Podesta, who’s handling Obama’s preparations to take over in the White House on Jan. 20, said on Sunday that Obama was reviewing Bush’s executive orders on those and other issues as he prepares to put his own stamp on policy after eight years of Republican rule.”
So Obama is reviewing Bush’s executive orders. Wow what a surprise. Of course he is, duh. I wonder what will we call it if Obama rescinds one of bush’s many constitutionally suspect executive orders? Will it be an abuse of power to undo an abuse of power? We might need some new phraseology here.
This does point up the validity of Colin’s original post. The incessant, relentless, and immoral power grab of the bush, cheney, rove triumvirate has handed Obama unprecedented power that I hope he chooses to use wisely.
Amazing that so many people know exactly what Obama, who as been president elect less than a week, is going to do. Many seem to act as if these things are fait accomple. Come on guys, Obama is far from my choice for president but at least let him do something (like maybe take the oath of office) first. I am going to see what he actually does before I object to it. What a novel concept in today’s world where partisanship overrules any and all objective thought.
Speaking of power grabs.
Bloomberg L.P., the parent company of Bloomberg News, said last week that it filed a lawsuit seeking information on the collateral that a group of banks pledged for some $2 trillion in emergency loans from the Federal Reserve.
Bloomberg asked a federal court in New York to require the Federal Reserve to disclose the identity of the banks that borrowed money through certain financing mechanisms, and to disclose what assets they pledged against those loans.
Bloomberg filed the suit after the Federal Reserve said that it would deny Bloomberg’s request for the information under the Freedom of Information Act.
It’s our money. At least let us know what we bought with it. Why is the concept of public records so hard for the bush administration to grasp?
“Why is the concept of public records so hard for the bush administration to grasp?”
Their attitude seems to be that nothing is public unless they say so, and nothing is private unless they say so. Just an observation.