When you vote, think on these things

Exactly backwards, IMO. A Bush victory will simply confirm the tactics of the GOP leadership which, along with the Bush family, has shifted the GOP radically leftward. A victory will continue the leftward trend.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A christian who cast his vote for a candidate who WILL NOT win is not being a good steward.

This whole subject is frying my brain. Each argument appears sound and I can see where each is coming from. Regarding the above quote: Is our God no longer capable of putting into office whom He wills, even if he is an underdog. I believe He has done even greater things in the past. Has He not?

 

Certainly. Christians should be obedient to God and His principles, and have faith in Him for the outcome.

 

RE: the latest edit

Gosh. I can't seem to do anything right. How 'bout this?

VOTE KERRY!

 

I'm sorry that you people have a "Holier than thou" attitude towards Pres. Bush. How can you say that he is for abortion? PUH-LEEZE!

Did you know that whenever John Kerry had a chance, he voted for more lenient abortion laws? He voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban - an issue that Pres. Bush is very passionate about. According to nationalreview.com, John Kerry

 

Thanks for your stand as a Christian organization and denomination. I am deeply evangelical in my theology and will vote for the pro-life candidate with the middle initial, "W". I visited my father-in-laws church, R.C., because he is losing his sight and cannot drive. The priest emphasized in a very positive way the importance of voting for pro-life, pro-family candidates.

"God forgive us of our national sins and give us a heart/life of true repentance.

Dr. Berrian, Th.D.

 

Exactly backwards, IMO. A Bush victory will simply confirm the tactics of the GOP leadership which, along with the Bush family, has shifted the GOP radically leftward. A victory will continue the leftward trend. </font>[/QUOTE]Leftward? Bush has followed the common formula for both parties- he runs to the middle. That cost him evangelical votes the first time.

His major accomplishments have been conservative or efforts to reshape the debate so that the direction can be changed. "Leave No Child Behind" is the first step, not the last, in bringing accountability to schools and represents a poke in the eye to teacher's unions- and they know it. The foundation of accountability will become a powerful weapon in the debate over school choice.

His tax cuts were conservative as are the overtures about considering a national sales tax. Even if he doesn't get one, he can again reshape the national debate.

When I was in college 20 years ago, one of my professors scoffed at the notion of progressive socialism. The past twenty years have proven him wrong repeatedly. I want many of the same things you do. Where we differ is that I think the only cure for the past 60 years of progressive socialism is about 20-40 years of progressive conservatism/libertarianism.

The CP is not within the bounds of the nation's conscience. It will never be considered serious unless the focus of the debate moves to the right. The debate for years has not been whether we were going to get more government but rather how much and how fast. The idea of the "ownership society" doesn't debate the necessity of reducing the size and scope of gov't but rather what is the best, most compassionate way of reaching the goal.

Social Security and Medicare cannot be eliminated tomorrow. We have to take care of those folks. But through privatized retirement accounts and medical savings accounts, my children might see a return to independence from government without a civil war.

You might not trust Bush. But you have no proof that Peroutka is trustworthy or could ever be effective as President either.

The chance that Bush can start a progressive movement back to individual liberty isn't 100%. It could be as low as 20%... but the chance that the CP will accomplish a return to constitutional principles from where we sit today is absolute ZERO.

 

Judges cannot make laws. Only the Congress and Senate can make a law, provided it is signed by the President. Any Judge that tries to make a law is acting unconstitutionally.

 

I don't know who's "holier than who". I'm in no contests.

As for Bush and abortion, I figure that his huge increases in funding for Planned Parenthood are not pro-life...ya think?

I figure with 3800 babies being killed per day, it is a high priority for anyone who is pro-life. Go to his website, and read his official agenda. It's pretty long. It's pretty detailed. Abortion does not even appear.

That's how I can say that he's not pro-life.

See?

 

The center keeps shifting leftward. The center is now to the left of where left was just ten years ago. It keeps being shifted, because people like Bush force the GOP leftward, and the whole thing moves.

"No Child Left Alone" is a huge federal power grab over education. Most of our problems with liberalism in education do not come from the local level, they come from state and federal education agencies in conjunction with teachers unions and universities. Federalizing it makes it worse.

Give him credit for tax cuts. Too bad his wold, out-of-control spending will require huge increases after he leaves office.

 

Yes we must vote with our concience. We must check carefully who is really godly. That's very important.

 

Well today the debate will be over. It is all in the American voter's hands. We ask god to bless us and protect us.But most of all we ask God to bring this nation back to Him and Christian principles.
Our nation has grown so morally corrupt we don't recognize sin when we see it.Even Christians hardly ever openly object to it publicly, we just complain amongt ourselves.
One more thing, since I am speaking to Christians, I do sincerely hope you vote today, because it will be your vote or lack thereof that decides who will be our president and other lawmakers.

 

Judges cannot make laws. Only the Congress and Senate can make a law, provided it is signed by the President. Any Judge that tries to make a law is acting unconstitutionally. </font>[/QUOTE]Really? Show me the language in the Constitution of the US that even remotely relates to a "right to choose abortion".

Roe v Wade isn't even an interpretation. Its an interpretation of an extension.

The Roe decision was supposedly based on the 4th Amendment that states:

This can no more apply to abortion than it can apply to a serial killer who does his business in the privacy of his own basement.

We as a people might choose any of a number of laws regarding abortion. But it is clearly a matter that should be decided by elected, accountable people.

This is one of the most egregious and damaging examples of making law from the bench.

What you said should be the case. However, liberal Democrats learned long ago that their most radical positions would never be enacted by the will of the people. They created a line of judicial theory that holds that the Constitution is a "living document" that can be pretty much distorted as necessary to promote liberalism.

Bush has promised to appoint only "strict constructionists"- people who basically believe what you stated above.

 

I agree, and because judges can't make laws, the states need to ignore the judges on the issue of Roe v. Wade, and enforce the 5th Amendment protection of the unborn childs life. States need to ignore the unconstitutional judges, even if it leads to a civil war.

If it's unconstitutional for liberal judges to create law, then it is also unconstitutional for conservative judges to create new laws to overturn the liberal laws.

We don't need new judges to create new laws, we need states and politicians who will protect and defend the US Constitution and if need be, ignore the judges.

 

I disagree completely. This should be settled in the same place it should have been settled at the beginning- in the legislative bodies. Most appropriately, the state legislatures where almost all murder statutes originate.

That is a logically inconsistent statement. It is not wrong to undo a wrong. It is not wrong to overturn a law that was unconstitutionally imposed.

It is not an act of "creating law" to overturn a law that was improperly created in the first place.

We need both of those things.

Our Constitution wisely separates the powers of the three branches. When one branch overreaches, it must be set right or the system will fail. For at least the past 40 years (I would say since the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913), the judiciary has progressively encroached on the powers of the elected bodies. Similarly, the executive branch to a lesser extent have been handed mandates to "make law" rather than execute it (ie. environmental regulations).

 

Webmaster, why are you distracting people with social wedge issues rather than addressing the very real, sweeping problems with War and Poverty?

 

Did you vote?

 

What's the difference between 'diversity' and 'social wedges'? You don't have to answer that here. Just think on it for a while.

As to the War, it's being exectuted right now. Everyone knows this.....even the majority of Americans who voted for Bush knows this. Unless one's been living under a rock since 9-11, the whole world knows this. Apparently, most Americans agree with Bush's war plan.

As to poverty, do you know how much money has been thrown at the 'War on Poverty' since it's inception? Over $9,000,000,000,000 - thats nine trillion dollars!

Care to guess what we are getting for our money? Poverty levels are the same, and high school drop-out rates have gone way up.

I suggest reading, "The Tragedy of American Compassion", by Marvin Olasky. You might begin to understand a different perspective on poverty, charity and compassion.


Instead of sour grapes, instead of hurling insults at the OP author, and instead of blaming everything under the sun for why Bush got re-elected, how about just accept the fact that the majority of Americans disagree with your views, and agree with Bush's.