Republican Liz Cheney endorses Kamala Harris

Wow! Staunch conservative, Liz Cheney, has endorsed Kamala Harris for president.

“I don’t believe that we have the luxury of writing in candidates’ names, particularly in swing states,” she said. “As a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this. Because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris.”

- rest of article at Republican Liz Cheney endorses Kamala Harris

 

Liz Cheney is still a member of the Republican Party. Cheney voted for what Donald Trump wanted while she was in Congress. The only reason he turned on her was because she would not go along with his attempt to overthrow the result of the 2020 presidential election.

Ideologically, I disagree with her on a lot of her foreign policy views, but I admire her for standing up for the republic and not kowtowing to Trump like so many weak-kneed Republicans have done.

 

I have no problem with her supporting Kamala Harris for president. But I understand that you and I have a difference of opinion on voting and what kind of vote is a sin(if any), and such.

We are all vile sinners voting for other vile sinners to rule over us. Adam and Eve rejected God's government in the Garden of Eden, thus all human governments are inherently corrupt while being a necessary evil.

Any vote for a person is a vote for a vile sinner(even if he or she has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit by God's free, sovereign grace). There are God's elect, who are still vile sinners in their flesh, and there are reprobates who are also vile sinners in their flesh.

Like I said, we are vile sinners voting for other vile sinners to rule over us in an inherently corrupt human government.

 

Who was in charge when the first Iraq War broke out? Who was in charge when the Afghanistan War broke out? Who was in charge when the second Iraq War broke out?

So there, Van. So there.

 

Seems like a good opportunity to post my favorite case against political involvement(it has not, to date, persuaded me to not vote, but I think it is a solid case made against it):

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It.

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”

 

They are Republicans, just like Van was making a similar charge against Democrats.

Are you anti-war, then? If so, I certainly respect such a position. Personally, I would like for all of the overseas United States military bases to be closed and all of the military personnel overseas brought back to the United States.

 

Balance the federal budget and stop increasing the national debt first.

 

Liz Cheney announced today that her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, will also vote for Vice President Kamala Harris.

May the tribe of those pejoratively called "RINOs" by the acolytes of Donald Trump greatly increase in number between now and November 5th.

 

I would suggest looking at the history(which I lived through) of around 1974 through 1985, if you want to see a sustained inflation problem.