Truth is the beginning of wisdom…

Archive for February 7th, 2008


Posted by straight shooter on February 7, 2008 under Political

Assuming John McCain gets the GOP nomination, it will show how whimsical history can be. It would be the first time in living memory that a Republican presidential nomination went to a candidate who was not merely opposed by a majority of the party but was actively despised by about half its rank-and-file voters across the country – and by many, if not most, of its congressional officeholders. After all, the McCain electoral surge was barely able to deliver a plurality of one-third of the Republican vote in a three-, four- or five-way split field. He has won, but he has driven the nomination process askew.

This result is like the nursery rhyme: “For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.”

In the current instance, the lost nail was a viable conservative candidate … which is definitely not McCain! And despite the chaotic condition of the conservative Republican majority, it still could easily nominate its candidate. In fact, we had two strong conservative candidates, either of whom almost surely would have unified the party early, as George W. Bush did in 2000. But neither ran.

One being the recently very popular, smart, eloquent, conservative, successful two-term Republican governor of one of our most populous swing states. In fact, he is the son of a former president. Unfortunately for him and the party, he is also the brother of the current president. If Jeb Bush’s name were Jeb Smith, the former Florida governor easily could have kept the conservative two-thirds of the Republican vote united and won the nomination.

The other, the solidly conservative Virginia Senator George Allen.

The problem is what happened when the two strongest candidates didn’t run. Who was left? A candidate who is really a democrat (McCain), one newly minted conservative (Romney), one factional neo-conservative (Huckabee), one social liberal (Giuliani), a impracticable anti-war candidate (Paul), and an older Southern gent lacking the energy that was necessary (Thompson).

So, unless things change rapidly, John McCain is left to lead the Republican party into the November battle. Yes, McCain is the finest war hero since Eisenhower to run for president … but he also is the one senior Republican who has gleefully put his thumb in the eyes of his fellow Republicans and conservatives for a decade and a half. He would become the apostate leader of a party that resists the kind of “flexibility” demanded by the social liberal platforms.

Conservatives worry (with good cause) that this fluke of Republican history might permanently deflect the course of the party away from conservatism.

We do need to remember though, if we conservatives sit on our hands this November we do risk marginalization within the party … but it will also let us be part of the restructuring of the party for the conservative cause. Let’s not throw the party “out with the bathwater” … let’s refill the tub.


Posted by straight shooter on February 7, 2008 under Political

John McCain is running on a platform that says your jobs are not coming back, the illegals are not going home, and we are going to have more wars.

McCain’s record on a host of issues, and to most conservatives, is not a pretty sight. On many of the great issues McCain has sided as often with the Left’s socialist policies and the Big Media as he has with the Right.

  • McCain voted twice against the Bush tax cuts.
  • McCain colluded to sell out the most conservative of Bush’s judges, and in 1993, voted to confirm the pro-abortion liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
  • McCain formed the “gang of 14,” seven senators from each party, when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism. All agreed to vote to block the GOP Senate from invoking the “nuclear option” – i.e., empowering the GOP to break a filibuster of judicial nominees by majority vote – unless the seven Democrats agreed.
  • McCain has a record of voting for Clinton justices and joining with Democrats anxious to kill the most conservative Bush’s nominees. Hardly a chance that a “President McCain” would nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
  • McCain colluded with liberals to pass McCain-Feingold, a law that denies to Second Amendment folks and right-to-lifers their First Amendment right to identify friends and foes of pro-life supporters in TV ads before national elections.
  • McCain condemns drilling for oil in Alaska’s ANWAR siding with the liberals, and has moved toward Gore on global warming.
  • McCain collaborated with Senate liberals in the McCain-Kennedy amnesty, which was rejected only after a national uprising, failing to do what is needed to control America’s borders and halt the invasion through Mexico.

On the two issues where Bush has been at his best, taxes and judges, McCain has sided against him. On the three issues that have ravaged the Bush presidency – the war in Iraq, the failure to secure America’s borders, and the trade policy that has destroyed the dollar, de-industrialized the country, and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America – McCain has sided with Bush.

Do we really want McCain? Me thinks NOT ! It would be faintly better than Hillary and Obama. What we really need is Huckabee to drop out and endorse Romney and transfer his voters to Romney … then the conservatives need to refocus, rally around, and get off their behinds and get to the polls that remain. Then they need to come out to the November election like they never have before.


Posted by straight shooter on February 7, 2008 under Political, Religion

QUESTION: Are you morally obligated to exercise your right to vote? That is, is it a sin not to do so?

Of course, I am posing this question to those of you who actually believe in the Christian concept of sin in the first place. Sin is disobeying God’s commandments and His will as defined in the Bible. Interesting question, isn’t it?

On Tuesday, November 4, 2008 Americans will once again go to the polls to decide who will lead us in government. In the 56th consecutive quadrennial election we will elect men and women to local, state and national offices who will make decisions that will affect our lives and the lives of our families. They will pass laws we will have to abide by. They will make choices that will also set the tone for our communities and our nation. They will decide what is “good” and what is bad public policy.

In short, those we elect will impose their collective morality, or lack thereof, on us. Despite what you have been told, this is why we have government – to promote good and to restrain evil. But it is how we as a society define “good” and “evil” that makes all the difference in the world. There are people running for even the highest offices in this great land … that look at “good” and “evil” a whole lot different than we do. They call “good” evil and call “evil” good as Isaiah 5:20-21 states: 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight. Some of them will even look at us Christians as “evil” … see the backwards already!

Ever wonder why we have given citizens tax deductions for financial contributions to churches and charities? Because charities and churches do the “good” work that benefit individual citizens and the greater community and the government in the past has wanted to encourage that to continue.

Ever wonder why we make citizens pay fines when they are ticketed for breaking the speed limit? Because we understand that speed can kill which is “bad” – because traditionally the majority of Americans value human life. So when someone speeds they are putting the lives of others at risk, and therefore the government wants to discourage that behavior. So we have jails and we have fines to deter such activity.

The two previous paragraphs describe in simple terms that governments do promote morality. It is “we the people” who will decide those who make the moral judgments for us … from the White House to the Courthouse. Who do we want that to be? It needs to be someone with a track record of solid biblical morals – not upside-down thinking that would call “good” evil and “evil” good. Our vote should never be dictated by what is best for our pockets. (1 Timothy 6:10; Luke 4:4)

I am one that believes God directed people in the formation of the United States of America for His purposes. I believe in a providential view of history. If you study the life of our country, it is clear that God has used certain people for certain tasks to help our country become a great nation. A great nation that has … for the most part … championed good. We have championed causes that have been consistent with a Biblical world view. Freedom. Liberty. Fighting oppression and against those who wish to dominate those who are weaker than they through military force or terrorism. If I had to take one man who best represents God’s hand on America over our 231 year history it would have to be George Washington. What an incredible life this man lived!

As we look towards November 4th let me remind you of what the Father of our nation said in his famous “Farewell Address” on September 17, 1796. Washington by this time had served two terms and did not wish to serve a third although he could have been President as long as wished because of his immense popularity. Here is a small, but poignant, part of that address to the country.

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

If the United States of America is to continue to stand it needs to do so on the principles of God … and all that represents. The only way for the principles of God to be upheld is for the Christian to stand firm in the process, to be part of it, to vote responsibly holding tight to these principles of God.

Is it a sin not to vote? James 4:17 says, “Anyone then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.”

What do you think?

On Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 GO VOTE … by biblical and godly principles … then the morality promoted will be “good” and thereby evil will be restrained.