Some have stated that I could do better in my arguments. That is one thing we agree on - I can do better and will do better in the future, so help me GOD. I didn’t call anyone names. I would never write anything that demeans a fellow person made in the Image of GOD. That is not just the meager word “clowns” that was used - rather, ’tis an acronym that stands for a political demographic I have identified. There exists the “Nascar Dads vote”, the “Soccer Moms vote”, and the “CLOWNS vote”. Both typing and speaking “Third-party advocates” gets tiring after awhile, so the acronym is helpful.
Being a CLOWNS voter doesn’t mean you are evil or stupid, it just means your thought process regarding government affairs is, whether liberal or conservative, very…well, unique, to say it obsequiously, because regardless of your specific arguments you are still following a trend of voting for a candidate designed after your own image…and such a candidate doesn’t really exist, so you have elevated a fellow whom you have imagined to be the next best thing.
I’m not insulting you as a person because of this choice, but I highly disapprove of your leadership ability and common sense judgment. Hence, I attempted to creatively explain that by comparing the mental characteristic run down to a suitor evaluation.
I was accused of “trashing the only men who are trying” to govern the country righteously. No, I am not trashing any men, but rather am pointing out that some politicians’ means are not capable of reaching productive ends, and the voters that support them follow suit. It is that simple. Only GOD can judge the motives. Mankind doesn’t really know what is going on in a fellow human being’s heart. But that is beside the point. That is why I said that there comes a time when intentions and opinions don’t really matter - it ultimately doesn’t matter what your intention is when you vote because your vote will still have an effect separate from your many personal intentions: directly or indirectly, it will put a leader in office. The outcome of this Election is our responsibility. I think there is a dangerous division in the Church that is hindering the Spiritual Battle. It is a burden to see things you cannot see. Hopefully one day when we are living in the presence of CHRIST I will ask HIM to explain it to you, since I know HE will explain better than me.
Furthermore, I am not saying the majority of men in your church are unfit to marry. The CLOWNS vote men exist for the CLOWNS vote women, not for me (forgive me, I couldn’t resist). I simply think they have a poor understanding of government, and as I have a deep interest and concern for American government, that remains a key point in a “suitor evaluation”. I am not interested in men that display incapable means of political practice. They may be very intelligent on other issues, and may be very serious Believers, but they really shouldn’t try to mess around with government for the fun of it - which is what Third-party candidates appear to do.
If you haven’t wondered already, I’m most likely getting this standard by comparing guys to my own father. I think that his military and financial experience and understanding of government make him far more qualified to run for President than Chuck Baldwin & Co., but he knows that it would be silly to try to grab the highest seat in the nation without first serving the country in local and State governments…and thus move upward. Why? Because it better prepares you for the highest political office in the land by giving you practical political experience and keeps you humble by testing you thoroughly. To not allow yourself to be tested in that manner is Spiritually weak regarding political authority.
I deeply appreciate the candid critiquing, because it can only help me improve. But you have attacked my writing style much more than the factual information I included in my article, and thus you have only bolstered my points. You have remained on the negative by bringing up easily dispelled myths about Senator McCain and even President Bush, but you still have not brought forth positive evidence for your chosen candidates. I’m surprised that you great logicians missed that!
THOUGH YOU HAVE ARGUED THAT MCCAIN IS UNWORTHY OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVED BALDWIN OR ANY OTHER THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE TO BE WORTHY OF THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Being a nice Christian guy isn’t enough. Being a radio host, lobbyist, and even Pastor isn’t enough. Where is the political fruit? If you are going to elect someone to the highest political office in the country, that person ought to have already displayed positive political fruit and experience. You never know if a leader really is who they claim to be until they have been tested…and I mean TESTED. Getting something accomplished in office is not as easy as it looks. If those third party candidates really care so much about reforming the country, why are they trying to skip other political offices and swoop for the Presidency? It makes me wonder if they really understand how government works.
THAT IS WHY MCCAIN IS THE ONLY VIABLE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN THIS ELECTION WORTHY OF AND CAPABLE OF WINNING THE WHITE HOUSE.
Obviously, one of us is wrong. I am not so shallow as to expect my warning to do any good in the ears of someone who already has their heart set sail on a course into the wild blue yonder. If you have not come around by now, there is really nothing else to say in this matter, but I will provide the following information so as to dispel propaganda purported by the liberal media and beyond.
That is all there is…there isn’t anymore…and thus I shake the dust off my feet.
PRAYERS FOR THE NATION AND THE WORLD,
~Amanda Christine Read~
DISPELLING THE TOP SEVEN MYTHS OF ELECTION 2008
1. “McCain supports liberal justices and is not a Constitutionalist.”
Senator McCain, in a speech given last May at Wake Forest University, said this…
“I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the President’s call to make.”
I trust that McCain will stand by that because he has been tested. The Constitutional requirement for a Senator to approve a Supreme Court Justice is that the judge must be qualified - that is, fit for the job, regardless of ideology. Don’t believe me? Well then, consider this: How else would we get Conservative judges into the Supreme Court if all liberal Senators turned them down (and Democrats often do) because they disagreed with their ideology? The Constitution protects the President’s authority so that the direct will of the people will be accomplished through their popular election of that President. Senator McCain is a mature Conservative that understands this and has been striving to set a good example for the rest of the Senate. Of course, you might not understand this because you apparently want a government designed after your own image, and such a government does not exist.
McCain will appoint judges that abide by the Constitution and don’t legislate from the bench. He doesn’t have to conduct a “litmus test” because qualified judges that abide by the Constitution and don’t legislate from the bench will oppose Roe v. Wade because it’s a phony, unconstitutional legislation! Contrast this view of government with Obama’s liberal view. Obama practically said in the third debate that he would not appoint a justice that isn’t made after his own image! Oh my, that sounds familiar…
2. “McCain isn’t truly pro-life.”
This statement is almost hilarious, especially since many staunch liberals know that it isn’t true (the NARAL gave McCain a grade of 0%) and are scared to death of him because of it!
McCain on Roe v. Wade:
“John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, “At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level.”
There is no greater nobility than to sacrifice for a great cause and no cause greater than protection of human dignity. Decency, human compassion, self-sacrifice and the defense of innocent life are at the core of John McCain’s value system and will be the guiding principles of a McCain Presidency.
‘To sacrifice for a cause greater than yourself, and to sacrifice your life to the eminence of that cause, is the noblest activity of all.’ “
McCain didn’t support the Sanctity of Life Act because he was being consistent with his Federalist standings: stop adding to Federal (National) law and give the States more power over their own laws so the American people will be able to more effectively govern themselves. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional because it was decided by a judge and judges should not make law - they should defend it. McCain is a proven staunch Federalist, and with him in office more decisions will be given to the people directly on the State level. Now, that’s a way we can positively influence the government - through controlling the leadership of our States! The CLOWNS vote won’t even have to worry anymore!
His promise of a pro-life administration is further bolstered by the appointment of Sarah Palin, a heroine in both word and deed of the pro-life movement.
The whole “life of the mother” deal is just a little legal clause that has to be added to the end of everything, but it’s rarely - if ever - used. Everyone ought to know that in reality abortion wouldn’t be necessary, as you would only have to induce early labor or deliver the baby by c-section in such a case. Very rarely is an abortion ever attempted for such a reason. Furthermore, only 1% of abortions are ever attempted due to rape or incest, and that number will certainly plummet once the power over abortion ruling is put back in our hands.
The question of embryonic stem-cell research is a strange one. I am certain that McCain would not advocate taking more human embryos for research because that would be against the dignity of human life. But McCain said that the tough point about this issue is that those embryos that have already been taken will either be discarded or left perpetually frozen. The attacks on McCain regarding this don’t even address the morality issue of whether we as a culture should allow artificially generating embryos and subsequently freezing them. Man’s attempt at manipulating conception outside of GOD’s natural design brings with it its own self-generated dilemmas. But to harp on McCain for the ramifications of a moral dilemma is just a shallow way of trying to find fault with him.
3. “McCain supports the torture of prisoners of war.”
McCain was tortured when he was a prisoner of war for five years, and he is perhaps the most outspoken Republican against torture, so I’ve got no clue where this one came from. I’m sure that every politician has ended up supporting a particular bill they may not entirely agree with for whatever legal reason. You don’t really know the full story unless you read the bill and the current events of that moment yourself.
4. “The Republican Party was once a Third-party, and Third-parties of today can be just as effective.”
The oft repeated claim in defense of Third parties is that the Republican Party began as “a small, insignificant third party in 1860 when Lincoln was elected”. 1860? America was only 84 years old! Things were just getting started! The entire government landscape was completely different because it was not fully formed. Women did not yet have the right to vote. If I’m not mistaken, Senators weren’t even elected by popular vote yet. This argument is, therefore, beside the point: in this past century, CLOWNS candidates have borne no fruit.
To have an effective understanding of American government, you must understand the following:
“A two-party system is a form of party system where two major political parties dominate voting in nearly all elections, at every level. As a result, all, or nearly all, elected offices end up being held by candidates endorsed by one of the two major parties. Coalition governments occur only rarely in two-party systems.
Under a two-party system, one of the two parties typically holds a majority in the legislature (or a legislative house in a bicameral system), and is referred to as the majority party. The other party is referred to as the minority party.
Notable examples of countries with “two party systems” include the United States and Jamaica. Some other countries that feature weak third or fourth parties, such as the United Kingdom, Spain, Malaysia, Portugal and Australia are often thought of as being two party states as well, as actual governance of the country may be dominated by only two parties even though other parties may have reasonable bases of support.
Generally, a two party system becomes a dichotomous division of the political spectrum with an ostensibly right and left party, Tories vs. Labour in some commonwealth countries, Republicans vs. Democrats in the US, etc.” (Wikipedia.org)
“The American two-party system results in part from the relative absence of irreconcilable differences within the American electorate about basic social, economic, and political institutions and in part from the absence of electoral rewards for minor parties. The traditions of plurality elections from single-member constituencies and of a single elected executive give few chances of victory or reward to parties that cannot muster the plurality.
Because of the two-party system, all American presidents and almost all members of Congress elected since the Civil War have been either Democrats or Republicans…While the two-party system has long characterized national politics, it has not invariably marked the politics of the states. In some measure, the national two-party system of the late nineteenth century was an aggregate of one-party states. The incidence of thatstatewide one partyism declined in the twentieth century, but the Democrats maintained a one-party supremacy in the states of the Deep South from the Reconstruction period into the 1960s and in some cases into the 1970s (the Republicans dominated the South from the late 1980s into the early twenty-first century). Occasionally, too, states have had three-party systems for short periods of time. Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Minnesota all included a party from the Progressive movement in their party systems in the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1990s and early 2000s, a number of third-party presidential candidates, including Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, both of the Reform Party, and Ralph Nader, of the Green Party, challenged Democratic and Republican candidates but with little success.” (Answers.com)
You must stop trying to redefine American government. Sure, through GOD all things are possible, but HE chose to put you in a country that has a Two-Party System. If you don’t like that you should move somewhere else.
5. “President Bush lied about the War on Terror.”
Now, tell me that and you’re treading on dangerous territory. If you think George W. Bush a liar…I hate to break it to you, but this is not a mere difference of opinion. You have been brainwashed. Brainwashed by the liberal media and people with self-serving agendas. I have watched malleable hearts and minds get crushed and confused and never know what hit them. The media has aimed its fiery darts at President Bush from the moment he set foot in office - before then, actually - and they have used every single opportunity since then to bash him. The majority of the media as well as Liberal Democrats despise Bush - what do you expect them to tell you? They wouldn’t dwell on a topic of good report if it stared them in the face for fear that it might make Bush look righteous.
The military had a post-war plan, but the State Department was some how allowed to interfere. If the military had been allowed to implement their plan, order would have been established much sooner. My father was a diplomat in the U.S. Army (in fact, my family and I accompanied him on a tour to Uzbekistan 13 years ago) and he worked with people in the State Department. He could not believe the level of incompetence they displayed which mostly stemmed from a Liberal agenda. Many in the State Department do not understand or appreciate the workings of the U.S. military.
John McCain has an excellent understanding of the U.S. military and the War on Terror and that is one reason why he should be Commander in Chief.
Bush did not lie about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein did have WMDs at one time, and he used them against the Kurds! He had resources for developing more, and there may very well still be WMDs hidden some where. We invaded Iraq because Hussein (who hated America) supported radical Islamic terrorists, which left Iraq a refuge for blood-thirsty terrorists to hide and plot in. If Iraq hadn’t become the central battleground, America would most likely have become that battleground instead.
As for the Patriot Act: if you have nothing to hide, then what are you afraid of? Your privacy will not be intruded upon as long as you have no connections to terrorist organizations. Terrorists are outlaws that don’t deserve privacy rights. The government isn’t going to waste time snooping on you for the fun of it. They will only search you out if they have evidence that you are a terrorist. It’s that simple.
6. “The Republican and Constitution Party platforms are completely different.”
Perhaps “protectionist” wasn’t the exact word I was looking for in reference to the Constitution Party platform, but I was referring to the obsession with keeping America locked up in her own little world and not having an international presence. However, the War on Terror is still outside of this realm of debate because it is more than Constitutional - we were attacked first and Iraq was part of the strategy to protect us from future attacks. Thus far, the strategy has worked. Be thankful that you are still alive because of it.
Here are some examples of similarities. The rest you can read for yourselves.
Republican:
“Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country. We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards.
We affirm every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious objects or symbols, or becoming subject to government-imposed hiring practices. Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace. We deplore the increasing incidence of attacks against religious symbols, as well as incidents of anti-Semitism on college campuses. “
Constitution:
“Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny. We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised. We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted. We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.”
The Republican Party Platform is based on the same world view the Constitution Party Platform is. The only difference is that the Republican Party Platform is more realistic, you might say, especially since we have a Two-Party system.
7. “There is no difference between Barack Obama and John McCain.”
Of all the myths, this is the silliest and most easily dispelled. It is worse than a mere myth - it is delusional. To begin, watch this. To follow, read through this. To finish off, just look at the number of raging Liberals that are planning victory parties and are preparing to celebrate Darwin’s 200th Anniversary.
This debate once again returns to the understanding of American government. If you cannot see what dire straits America will be in if she has both a Liberal Democrat President and a Liberal Democrat majority in Congress, you lack common sense, plain and simple. You are not acting brave and dispelling any sort of “scare tactic” (which does not exist), you are merely blind folding yourself and attempting to dance across a busy high way and expecting to not get hit. Don’t tempt the LORD, which is what the devil tried to get JESUS to do when telling HIM to throw HIMSELF off the pinnacle of the temple.
“It is written, ‘YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.”
- Matthew 4:7
