Friday, October 17, 2008
At Disney the other day, I noticed a shirt. You may be like, Who cares. Well, this is a really big deal for me because I am usually horrible at noticing people's clothing (which can be a good thing these days). *wink* OK, so I noticed this shirt that said "Vote for Grumpy" with a big picture of Grumpy on the front. In little letters underneath Grumpy it said something along the lines of, "Dopey's cuter, Doc is funnier, etc etc" Basically naming how all the other dwarfs were so much better. That got me thinking...
I am sure that if all the seven dwarfs had an election campaign, Grumpy would be one of those to NOT win. It's obvious! But like I said, that shirt got me thinking about something I've been thinking a lot about anyway. When I start sending emails and newsletters in my support of Chuck Baldwin for president, I am in essence saying, "Vote for Grumpy." Now please don't think that I consider Baldwin and Grumpy alike in any way and am trying to make a joke. It just occurred to me that my support for Baldwin is similar to supporting someone as unpopular as Grumpy.
So it comes down to the facts of my heart. Why vote for someone who will probably not win? Because of my last post: conscience. How can I vote out of fear for someone whom I don't think God would want leading his people (and that goes for McCain AND Palin)? And why would God bless that? God is not going to bless something just because it's better than something else. He's going to bless something that honors and glorifies him and his ways.
So, I'm voting for "Grumpy" :) And maybe now you understand why...
You know, now that I think of it, McCain DOES remind me of Dopey... *wink*
Sunday, October 12, 2008
A Wasted Vote
by Chuck Baldwin
October 10, 2008
When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true:
In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."
Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!
Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending
But, back to the "he cannot win" argument: to vote for John McCain is to vote for a man who cannot win. Yes, I am saying it here and now: John McCain cannot win this election. The handwriting is on the wall. The Fat Lady is singing. It is all over. Finished. John McCain cannot win.
With only three weeks before the election, Barack Obama is pulling away. McCain has already pulled his campaign out of
Ladies and gentlemen, Barack Obama is headed for an electoral landslide victory over John McCain. John McCain can no more beat Barack Obama than Bob Dole could beat Bill Clinton.
I ask, therefore, Are not conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain guilty of the same thing that they accuse people who vote for third party candidates of doing? Are they not voting for someone who cannot win? Indeed, they are. In fact, conservatives and Christians who vote for John McCain are not only voting for a man who cannot win, they are voting for a man who does not share their own beliefs and principles. If this is not insanity, nothing is!
So, why not (for once in your life, perhaps) cast a vote purely for principle! Vote for someone who is truly pro-life. Someone who would quickly secure our nation's borders, and end the invasion of our country by illegal aliens. Someone who would, on his first day in office, release Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean and fire U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Someone who would immediately, upon assuming office, begin leading the charge to dismantle the Federal Reserve, overturn the 16th Amendment, expunge the IRS, and return America to sound money principles. Someone who would get the
"Who is this person?" you ask. Go here to find out:
As John Quincy Adams said, "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."
That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. As the Massachusetts Democrat has explained it in recent days, the current financial crisis is the spawn of the free market run amok, with the political class guilty only of failing to rein the capitalists in. The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "
In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.
Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector's discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.
The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.
As long as housing prices kept rising, the illusion that all this was good public policy could be sustained. But it didn't take a financial whiz to recognize that a day of reckoning would come. "What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs . . . When the coming wave of foreclosures rolls through the inner city, which of today's self-congratulating bankers, politicians, and regulators plans to take the credit?"
Frank doesn't. But his fingerprints are all over this fiasco. Time and time again, Frank insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good shape. Five years ago, for example, when the Bush administration proposed much tighter regulation of the two companies, Frank was adamant that "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis." When the White House warned of "systemic risk for our financial system" unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.
Now that the bubble has burst and the "systemic risk" is apparent to all, Frank blithely declares: "The private sector got us into this mess." Well, give the congressman points for gall. Wall Street and private lenders have plenty to answer for, but it was Washington and the political class that derailed this train. If Frank is looking for a culprit to blame, he can find one suspect in the nearest mirror.
Is it now your view that God can call a woman to serve as president of the United States? Are you prepared to renounce publicly any further claim that God's plan is for men rather than women to exercise leadership in society, the workplace and public life? Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?
The Bible calls women to specific roles in the church and home, but does not prohibit them from exercising leadership in secular political fields. Therefore we must be careful to not go beyond the teaching of the Bible. A president is not held to the same moral standards as an elder of a church. While it is a blessing from God to have ethical or even Christian political leaders, the Bible places no such requirements on secular governments. Even though the Bible reserves final authority in the church for men, this does not apply in the kingdom of this world.
Vision Forum Ministries Responds:
1. Dr. Gushee has identified a genuine inconsistency in the position of our semi-complementarian/semi-
egalitarian friends. In our view, this inconsistency cannot be justified on the grounds of Scripture, nor of sound reason.
Also, I think it is important to begin by observing that our friends at CBMW have not provided clear answers to several key points raised in the five questions by Dr. Gushee. The question was asked: "Do you acknowledge having become full-fledged egalitarians in this sphere at least?"
No answer is given by CBMW. Yet it seems clear that this is exactly what has happened. At this point, there is no clearly distinguishable difference between the feminist understanding of male/female distinctions and civil leadership and the position of CBMW. As to their view of the jurisdiction of the state, both are full-blown egalitarians. If substantive differences exist between the two positions, they are not immediately apparent, and the burden of proof is on CBMW to explain to us what they are.
2. CBMW responds by making four assertions: (1) the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as civil magistrates: 2) Presidents are not held to the same moral standards as pastors; (3) The Bible does not establish any ethical standards for the leadership of "secular governments."; and (4) the leadership distinctions between men and women which apply in the Church do not apply in "the kingdom of this world." In this blog post, I will address the first claim.
First, the claim that the Bible does not prohibit women from serving as civil magistrates is false. In fact, the Bible has a great deal to say about the requirements for civil magistrates, which you can read about here, here, and here. It is true that there is no verse that says, "a woman may not be a civil magistrate," but it is also true that there is no verse which says "a woman may not be an elder." The case for the biblical requirements for elder and civil magistrate are both based on: (1) the doctrine of the creation order distinctions between men and women; (2) the positive commands about the distinctive role differences between men and women; (3) the negative commands and warnings directed against those who would violate this creation order principle; and, importantly, (4) the positive commands which specifically require that both civil magistrates and elders be male.
Second, the undefended assertion that the Bible does not prohibit women from being civil magistrates is irresponsible in light of the fact that such a perspective is inconsistent with the majority view of orthodox Christianity throughout Church history articulated by such great Reformers as John Knox and John Calvin, the former of whom write that: "To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature, contumely to God, [and] a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance. . . ."
Third, to get around the many commands of Scripture found in the Old Testament, semi-complementarians must argue that the general precepts and patterns found in the Old Testament are largely obsolete and inapplicable to modern society. (The one exception to this rule is that they want to be able to cite the Israelite prophetess Deborah as an example of a civil magistrate, an argument which: (a) shows their inconsistency, and (b) has been defeated by Reformers and present-day theologians like William Einwechter)
3. The arbitrary restriction of the doctrine of complementarianism and the creation order to the realm of church and family is not only illogical, it is a departure from CBMW's position in the past in which they formally opposed women in combat, freely citing extensive precepts from the Old Testament, building their argument around the doctrine of the creation order itself, and showing the clear link between complementarian responsibilities in the home and those of manly civil responsibility through military service.
Below are segments from their position paper on "Women in Combat: A Resolution From CBMW," which was adopted on November 23, 1996:
WHEREAS, God created male and female with specific and complementary characteristics (Gen. 1:27), declaring them "good" (Gen. 1:31) so that male and female in relationship constitute a complete expression of the divine order for humanity, yet without blurring or denying the meaning or significance of gender-based distinctions established by God in the created order; and
WHEREAS, The equality of male and female as to dignity and worth, following from their creation in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), is fully consistent with and is in no way contrary to gender-based distinctions as to roles and responsibilities which are also established in the created order; and
WHEREAS, God, by creating Adam first (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8) and also by creating woman for man (Gen. 2:18,20,22; 1 Cor. 11:9), has set the gender-based role and responsibility of males in the most basic unit of society (the family) to be that of leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector (also cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7), and likewise has set the gender-based role and responsibility of females to be that of help and nurture (Gen. 2:18) and life-giving (Gen. 3:20) under male leadership and protection (cf. 1 Peter 3:7); and
WHEREAS, Intentional rejection of the connection between male headship in the family and the male protective role that defines and justifies service as a soldier in military combat necessarily strikes at the complementary nature of male and female relationships established in the order of creation, and unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction; and
WHEREAS, The pattern established by God throughout the Bible is that men, not women, bear responsibility to serve in combat if war is necessary (Gen. 14:14; Num. 31:3,21,49; Deut. 20:5-9,13-14; Josh. 1:14-18; 6:3,7,9; 8:3; 10:7; 1 Sam. 16:18; 18:5; 2 Sam. 11:1; 17:8; 23:8-39; Ps. 45:3-5; Song of Sol. 3:7-8; Isa. 42:13); and
WHEREAS, Biblical examples that record women serving in combat (Jud. 4:4-23) are presented as contrary to proper and normal gender-based distinctions between male and female roles and responsibilities, and as caused by a failure of male leadership that is worthy of shame (Jud. 4:9-10); and . . .
Note that the 1996 statement by CBMW wisely reminds the Church that those rare and non-normative examples of role reversals in the Scripture such as Deborah (Jud. 4:4-23) are reminders of male abdication "worthy of shame." They are not meant to be examples for emulation, CBMW argues, nor does their inclusion in Scripture justify the suspension of the duty of men, not women, to lead. Yet this is precisely what semi-complementarians such as CBMW's Executive Director David Kotter are attempting to do in 2008 by excluding the numerous patterns and precepts found in Scripture that demonstrate the complementarian mandate for male leadership in the civil jurisdiction while attempting to justify support for Sarah Palin based upon the non-analogous and non-normative example of the Israelite prophetess Deborah. CBMW has done an about-face on Deborah by using her example to justify Sarah Palin's bid for the vice presidency while stating in 1996 that it was a sign "worthy of shame."
Note also that, in the 1996 Resolution, the Old Testament patterns and precepts are widely invoked to build the case that gender distinctions apply to the civil responsibility of military service. Why in 2008 are the Old Testament passages on qualifications, male responsibility, and civil jurisdiction ignored or dismissed as irrelevant? Has the Word of God changed over the last twelve years?
Furthermore, if CBMW was correct in their 1996 Resolution that these principles apply to non-elected representatives of the United States military serving the federal government, how much more should these same principles apply to an elected Commander in Chief who would preside over all of the military?
Finally, note that in 1996, CBMW was willing to reach the conclusion that it is the duty of men, not women, to lay their lives on the lines in military service because: (a) women are to be nurturers and helpers "under male leadership and protection," but not leaders; (b) God requires men to be leaders, providers, and self-sacrificial protectors. In fact, CBMW even argued that placing women in combat "unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction."
We believe that excellent organizations like CBMW cannot reasonably argue that having women serve in military combat "unavoidably undermines the order, structure, strength and stability of families within any society that determines to ignore, deny or erase this gender-based distinction," but that promoting a mother of young children to rule over a nation (including her husband) as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief of the military does not. The argument strains credulity.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
This link is an interesting YouTube on Ron Paul predicting the bail out! I am a fan of Ron Paul for his ultra conservative ways. You NEED to read his book: The Revolution: A Manifesto. I wish he was the republican nominee... *sigh* God is sovereign!