John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress
Posted by Larry Perrault at 3:52 PM 1 comments
Labels: abortion, cap. Obama, defense, economy, education, Foreign, freedom, judge, judiciary, marriage, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Security, social, speech
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources.
7) Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
8) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
9) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
10) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage. Show all posts
Sunday, November 2, 2008
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Black Christian Musician Huntley Brown - Why I Can't Vote For Obama
I am working on filling out the top 10 reasons why an Obama presidency would be bad (now that’s a monumental understatement) for America, both individually and collectively. A friend sent me something written by a black Christian musician explaining why he can’t vote for Obama. Obviously, there is some overlap in subject matter. But, not unexpectedly, there are some matters on which I different somewhat from ordinary reflective sentiment. It’s a disposition I have that some might cal a disorder.
I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.
Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.
I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.
His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.
Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.
I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.
His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
Friday, June 27, 2008
Gay Marriage And Considering Nuance
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
I wrote most of this last week, but was distracted with other things. I have intended for weeks and really months, now, to change the approach of the discussion on my Blog, on which I have been VERY inactive recently. Of course, I spent most of the last year advocating for Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign and defending him against what I’m certain were ill-founded and often disingenuous criticisms. I think I have been to a great extent letting the air out and recuperating from the campaign, occasionally posting on why it is critical for America’s future in almost all respects, for conservatives to support John McCain despite his occasional philosophical infidelities.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
And, in the past few weeks I have begun a program of physical and occupational therapy to deal with the weaknesses and impediments that have accrued over my 15 years with multiple sclerosis. But, I want to write about the matter of the “legalization” in California of gay marriage beginning last week, Tuesday June 17. I enclose “legalization” in quotes because judges don’t make law; they interpret them and all too often MISinterpret them. This situation was foisted upon the California people via a capricious and presumptuous ruling by the California Supreme Court, defying the expressed will of the people, EVEN IN CALIFORNIA!
I think it is apt for me to write about this for a few reasons which are paradigmatic of some overall concerns of mine:
1) In fact, I do think homosexual marriage is a bad idea, for the health of both the society and the homosexual individuals themselves, but that is not my primary concern or frankly not even in play in this question.
2) Of serious concern is the judicial presumption over the will of the people that was expressed in the political process, when there is no issue of basic constitutional principle. And actually, the passivity of the people in rolling over and accepting it for no better reason that I can discern than that some very foolish people in media tell them that they are obligated to, may be an even greater concern.
3) This is also an issue like some others on which I do not have the conventional reflex of many people who consider themselves “conservative.” In fact, I was and am an enthusiastic supporter of Mike Huckabee who himself, quite expectedly supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I DO NOT. Oh, I understand that a legal case can and undoubtedly will be pressed for other states to recognize these marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution. That would be a misapplication of that provision. And, the proper course to confront it would not be an amendment to the US Constitution, but for an unwilling state to simply refuse to submit to any such ruling: as someone once said, “Just say ‘No!’”. Frankly, after over 34 years of quivering under a contrived judicial edict that supposedly commands national accession to unrestricted abortion, it’s long past time for a state to stand up and say, “Enough! The Constitution is not an all-purpose medium for any outrageous dictum, and The United States has no kings, certainly not incognito as judges!”
Addressing this last matter first, consider two things: a) the federal government and certainly the US Constitution have no jurisdiction over marriage and should not. And to introduce such a matter to the US Constitution would severely diminish the integrity of that document. And b) to cede the authority of amending the US Constitutional to define marriage the way you like it, today, is to cede the authority of a US Constitutional amendment to define it any other way, tomorrow. Take a step back: Do you really dismiss the possibility that popular consensus might change?
The US Constitution should have nothing to say about what constitutes a marriage. Honestly, I’m anything but enthusiastic about even a state government establishment of marriage. We see marriage as an institution before God, not the state. And that confusion diminishes marriage. The worst part of our marriage convention as when a minister says, “And now, by the authority vested in me by the state of…” WAIT A MINUTE! The state? If a marriage is an oath only before a state, it could be no surprise that people might take it lightly. Breaking your vows won’t even earn you a citation! And, who knows how a changing and sliding people might one day define marriage?
But, I do grant the authority of a sovereign state to determine its own social practices how it chooses…by a democratic political process, NOT by the arbitrary impulse of judges. So, it is for Californians to decide if they will amend their constitution. And, in my state, I would not support gay marriage. As things stand, the preferred route would be to impeach some judges.
When I launch into this new effort I will in addition to describing my experience and contemplation of MS for the consideration of sufferers and their friends and families also discuss my thoughts on many social, political, philosophical, and theological aspects of life. I have an atypical inclination to engage such abstract thoughts. And I often consider such fine distinctions as those expressed above. I am quite aware that most discussions, particularly political ones do not and cannot engage such nuance.
For example, when Huckabee says he supports constitutional amendments on marriage and human life, I consider that that the shorthand is that he supports a TRADITIONAL definition of marriage and thinks abortion is unconstitutional and I agree. I WOULD support a constitutional amendment clarifying the sanctity of human life. But, the amendment process is such that if it could genuinely be accomplished, the social problem would have already been solved. If such a majority was so explicit in its opposition to abortion, they would probably have already acted to stop it. As of today, many will record their opposition to abortion. But, few will pause to do very much about it.
But, often the nuances of issues merit consideration, short attention spans and sound-byte mass-communications, notwithstanding. To break them down to a more bite-sized offering presents a daunting task. But, it is my great fortune and privilege that I haven’t too much more pressing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)