customers served (give or take a few hundred thousand) since September 2004!
Comments and opinions expressed on THE KNIGHT SHIFT are those of Christopher Knight and not necessarily those of subjects discussed in this blog, of advertisers appearing on it or of any reasonable human being. Any correspondence/irate letters/lawsuit threats/Nigerian e-mail scams can be sent to theknightshift@gmail.com.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Republican party were to split apart after this election, and maybe even before then.
If so, I can't see how that would be anything but a good thing.
I've seen this coming for a long time. So have a lot of other observers. Those among the Republicans who genuinely desire less government, slashed taxes and cut spending believe - with no small amount of evidence supporting their claim - that they have been incrementally squeezed out of having influence within their own party. The "old boys network" of party elites can't have the grassroots gettin' too uppity, ya see. The rank and file have to be clamped down on. Punished, even. But I can't remember it ever being so blatant as it is become this week down Tampa way.
I'm not active in the Republican party. But I do know plenty of good folks who are (along with good people in the Democrat party). And a lot of them are getting mighty peeved at what the "GOP-e" are doing to their sincere efforts toward reducing the size of government.
The Republican bigwigs have become like an abusive spouse: the kind that beats the poor wife and then says "Where else are you gonna go bay-bee?" It's been that way for awhile now. And the Republican leaders are choosing to be ignorant of the fact that the ordinary citizens making up the party are getting up the nerve to at long last retaliate.
Like I said, I can't see how this could be a bad thing at all. If the Republicans split, it could give this country something it hasn't had in a long, long time...
Because today I just don't feel like I want to eat chicken.
It has nothing to do at all with the recent statements by the company's president, Dan Cathy, regarding his beliefs on homosexuality and "gay marriage". It was a statement of his personal opinion and he's entitled to have them. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with him, but that's not the point of this post.
So today has been declared "Let's Go To Chick-fil-A And Buy Their Food And Show We Support Traditional Families For God And Country Day Hurrah For Us!" or something. It's in response to the boycott that some "gay rights" groups (I never understood the concept of "gay rights" either: what rights exactly do some homosexuals believe they're being deprived of? I've never seen a "Straights Only" lunch counter in all my years of living in the South of all places...) have called of the restaurant chain.
So of course, hundreds of thousands and perhaps even a million or so self-described conservatives are descending upon Chick-fil-A locations across the fruited plain to rally their support behind Cathy, anti-homosexuality, and whatever else that "conservative leadership" (whatever the hell that means) has decided.
But I'm not going to Chick-fil-A today. And I've been called conservative (and "closet conservative", whatever the hell that means too) a heap of times.
I just don't feel like eating chicken today.
I mean, I've had chicken two of the past three days. Why would I want to go anywhere today to eat more chicken... is that "eat mor chikin"?
Now, is that supposed to be at all indicative of where I stand on this particular issue?
I'm not hungry for chicken today. Any of my conservative friends and colleagues got a problem with that?
And if we have arrived at a place where we feel that we must be a component of collectivized thought in order to "matter", to have any sense of worth in this world, then we've a much bigger problem we should be addressing than one company president's personal beliefs.
(Longtime readers will know that I have never been a fan of either Obama or Bush. They're the two worst Presidents in American history, in my book...)
I juxtapose these two seemingly unrelated items before you, good readers, because I remember plenty of times during Bush's presidency when too many Christians simply "rolled over and took it" when he and his administration violated the Constitution. Not only that, but practically sang praises to the man (and even praying to Bush in at least one instance). So too, do I know fully well how many if not most of the "mainstream press" have a significant bias toward the Democrat party and for what are considered "liberal" causes.
Every day, bit by bit, I watch America die before my eyes because we the people will valiantly fight for what's right when it is in our favor but will feign ignorance and indifference when it is not. Who knows: we may not have this ObamaCare crap if a lot of us had chosen to take a stand against certain politicians during the past decade.
One of the most defining moments in my life as a thinker came courtesy of Matt Mittan, waaaay back when I first went to work for him at that newspaper in Asheville. Matt proceeded to draw a diagram on a dry-erase board about how most people think of government and politics as being "left versus right". But that's not how it really is at all, he went on. Instead of a horizontal line depicting a tug-of-war between self-proclaimed "liberals" and "conservatives", the line should actually be vertical: between the individual and the collective masses.
It was like an instant of enlightenment for me. Something I had known, but didn't know how to express it, suddenly became crystal clear. Matt didn't have to go any further, I could see it so vividly: the "conflict" between left and right, in reality, always takes away from individual liberty and gives more and more power to the government!! The only thing the "left" and "right" are fighting over is who gets to control the government. Neither "side" will ever admit that what they seriously want is control over We The People.
There may have been a time when the words “conservative” and “liberal” meant something, but that time is no more. Today, “conservatives” in government are doing as much to promote Big Government, as are “liberals.” In fact, if one were to honestly evaluate the twelve years of the George Herbert Walker Bush and G.W. Bush administrations, one could say that “conservatives” even eclipse “liberals” in promoting Big Government. Under the two Bushes, the federal government expanded (and even exploded) to levels that for-real liberal Democrats could only dream about.
Let’s get realistic. Just because a politico says he or she is “pro-life,” or “pro-family,” or “pro-marriage,” etc., does not mean that they are going to do anything to help save the country. Come on, folks; think! “Conservative” Republican administration appointments have dominated the US Supreme Court since the infamous Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that effectively legalized abortion-on-demand. And we are no closer to overturning Roe and Doe after almost forty years of electing “pro-life conservatives” than we were the year after the Roe and Doe decisions were rendered. And for the first six years of the 21st Century, “conservative” Republicans dominated the entire federal government, and still the Roe and Doe decisions stand.
(snip)
Both “conservatives” and “liberals” look to the federal government to establish and enforce their parochial agendas. “Liberals” look to Washington for the establishment of “social justice,” while “conservatives” look to Washington for the establishment of “military justice.” The net result is the federal government keeps getting bigger and bigger regardless of who controls the White House, Congress, or Supreme Court.
“Conservatives,” whether Christian or not, are just as culpable in the expansion of Big Government as are “liberals.” In fact, when it comes to the expansion of military adventurism, “conservatives” are the most culpable. And when it comes to the ever-burgeoning police state that is currently taking shape in the United States, “liberals” and “conservatives” are equally to blame. Let’s face it: both “conservatives” and “liberals” are in the midst of an intense and illicit love affair with Washington, D.C...
I cannot be convinced otherwise: that America will NEVER grow into her fullest potential until her people GIVE UP and GET OVER this fraudulent divide between "conservatism" and "liberalism".
Seriously. "Democrats" vs. "Republicans"? Don't MOST adults grow up past such childish behavior?
In an honorable nation there would have been NO mention at all of politics or labels in the aftermath of what happened in Tuscon, Arizona this weekend. Instead I have watched TOO MANY of us still fixated on "US vs THEM".
What a crock of crap that is!! Some of us seemed even oblivious to the fact that innocent people DIED in this senseless act. And we're supposed to be the most "enlightened" nation on Earth?!
Like %&@# we are!!
I don't care what the victims believed in. I don't care what the assailant believed in. This was a CRIMINAL ACT. It does not require explanation. It does not require understanding.
And it absolutely does not merit exploitation!
And for those who yet insist upon a reason for the tragedy in Tuscon...
It is the same reason as has existed since the dawn of time: imperfect human nature left to its own devices, given to hate and acts of hate... and all too often, hate without any reason at all.
Thoughts and prayers going out to all of those involved. And by "all", I mean that.
I've a number of criteria for judging whether a news agency is reputable or not. Usually it's a long-term process of determination but lately it's become much, much easier for me.
Wanna know why?
It's real simple: any news outlet that cites the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reputable source of information, gets a honkin' HUGE demerit and damn near an unforgivable one.
I first heard of ethnic warfare whore Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center fifteen years ago, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. Dees was pimpin' himself on most of the news channels, claiming his Southern Poverty Law Center was warning the feds way in advance about "the militias movement". 'Twas enough to make me wonder who this twit was. Since then I've discovered that he's not much more than the worst sort of perpetual pest: the kind that demands everyone see a "crisis" to justify his own pathetic self-imposed purpose. In the case of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center this entails claiming that everyone who is against their wacko socialist agenda is automatically a racist on par with Hitler himself.
So it is that I have also come to sincerely believe that any so-called "journalist" who even remotely considers Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center to be creditable, should be fired automatically if not outright dragged out into the town square and locked up in the pillory for a well-earned mocking.
But don't take my word for it, dear readers! The Southern Poverty Law Center has just published a "hit list" of forty "patriots" that the organization has deemed to be a threat to American society. On the list are columnist Chuck Baldwin (he ranked #1, and that's his response at the link), Representative Ron Paul of Texas, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, and Glenn Beck (somebody that I have never listened to and have no plans to, but to the very best of my knowledge has done nothing inordinately wrong). There are also a number of outspoken critics of the federal government, and especially of the income tax and the IRS.
Curiously, there is not one person on the list who could be considered an avowed "liberal". Every person denounced by the Southern Poverty Law Center is regarded by conventional wisdom as being a "conservative" or a "libertarian".
Darn. I wish that I could be on that list! Guess I'm not a big-league enough blogger yet.
Maybe if I pointed out that Morris Dees is a sexual pervert and child molester who was once caught exploiting his step-daughter, and that his Southern "Poverty" Law Center has by many accounts raked in more than a hundred million dollars by scaring the gullible with rumors of the Third Reich rising again, that maybe he would put me on his enemies list?
Or maybe putting it in larger font would mark me as a worthy adversary...
The vote occurred along split partisan lines. The ten Republicans on the board voted for the curriculum changes and the five Democrats opposed it. The results have been both hailed and condemned as giving the teaching materials a "conservative" and "right-leaning" slant, as opposed to what some construe is a "liberal" one.
The reason this is going to be a big deal for the rest of the country is because Texas is one of the biggest consumers in the highly lucrative business of school textbooks. So if textbook publishers have to produce for the Texas market, those same learning materials will likely be adopted in other states.
Matthew wrote on his blog about how this smacks too much of political propaganda. And, he would be correct.
But what troubles me especially about this - and it's taken me a few days to really feel ready to articulate my thoughts on it - is that the Texas State Board of Education is perpetuating a terrible ignorance... and it has nothing to do with the ideological flavor of the textbooks that they will be using. I would be just as bothered by the board's actions if it had purposefully chosen an admittedly left-leaning curriculum.
The ten members of the board who voted for these changes demonstrated no wisdom or foresight by wielding their power in order to literally ensconce Newt Gingrich and the Moral Majority in the history books, or to remove entirely any mention of Thomas Jefferson as a leading intellectual guiding light of early America (huh?!). And it's even troubling that the board deliberately chose to remove Ross Perot's 1992 run for President from historical discussion (the 1994 "Contract with America" however did make it in).
Is it Republican/"conservative" propaganda? Hell yes it is. And it would be just as wrong if it were Democrat/"liberal" propaganda. The examination and deliberation of history should never be defined by and along partisan lines. History is a broad tapestry, and to selectively pull this thread or that one out of it is to cheapen and make worthless the work entire.
But that still isn't what is particularly frustrating me about what the Texas State Board of Education has chosen to do. No, what irks me the most is that in spite of its sworn duty and very title, the board has chosen not to educate young minds, but to rather instill unquestioning obedience to the status quo and a paradigm fast approaching obsolescence.
Education is supposed to be a thing that transforms a person into an enlightened individual. The intended result of education should be a person capable of wise choice, rational mind, and liberty to pursue the exercise of personal conscience. In short: education is that which most empowers one to be free... including the freedom to question The Way Things Are.
The Texas State Board of Education, however, has chosen to compel the millions of children in its charge to accept The Way Things Are without question. And I would say that regardless of which ideology the curricula was being slanted toward. The Texas State Board of Education however has taken an education of ignorance to an entire new level of brazenness. The board - along with all other school boards in the United States - should be doing its damndest to encourage its students to not think in terms of "conservative and liberal". That is a dichotomy as false as anything could possibly be. It is also one that I am increasingly seeing is being challenged and questioned by a growing number of people.
But it's not freedom of mind that the Republicans of Texas' state school board have shown they are interested in by this course of action. Rather, they have demonstrated that they want, in their own way, to continue propping up the two-party puppet show that is destroying America.
Well, America isn't going to be saved for our children by the party faithful of either the Democrats or the Republicans. If America is going to have any future at all, it's going to come by the hard work, tireless efforts and even sacrifice of those who refused to abide by The Way Things Are.
The Texas State Board of Education had an opportunity to lead the way in this country by an infusion of fresh blood. Instead it chose to continue a condition of terminal anemia.
Perhaps there is a country in history that has thrived on a determined education in ignorance and apathy. But if there is one, it's not coming to the mind of this writer. And I doubt that Texas, as a state, is going to prove to be any different.
One of the people that in the long run has most influenced and impacted my political beliefs is, without a doubt, Matt Mittan: host of the extremely popular show Take A Stand! on the radio and streaming on the Internet every Monday through Friday from 3 to 6 p.m. I count myself as a very fortunate person for getting to work under Matt when he was the editor of The Asheville Tribune. And I'll never forget the first time I came into his office and he showed me what his weekly newsmagazine was all about...
"Most people think of the political spectrum like this," he said, drawing a horizontal line on a dry erase board and labeling the ends "liberal" and "conservative". "But that's wrong," Matt went on. "It's really like this!" And he then drew another line: this one going up and down, with the state/government at the top and the individual at the bottom.
"It's really about the state having the power versus the one person having the power." And Matt continued to talk about how at one far end there is totalitarianism and fascism, and at the other wild extreme there is total anarchy.
And that's when I realized, for the very first time in my life, that the whole "conservative and liberal" thing is a con job. It's a fraud, that regardless of which "party" is in control of Washington or the states its only real purpose is to give more and more power to government. I don't want a totalitarian state and neither do I desire a completely lawless land. But in between, Matt suggested, there can indeed be a "happy medium" that upholds personal liberty while avoiding reckless abandon.
That's never going to be a cut-and-dried thing. But ever since then I have come to still believe in it enough to pursue it, with whatever talents and devices I might ever have on hand. Matt opened my eyes wider than he ever knew that day, and I've been praying since that others might come to realize it as well on their own.
Maybe that's starting to finally happen. David G. Muller Jr. has written an article for American Thinker called Rethinking the Political Spectrum, in which he also argues that the traditional "conservative versus liberal" paradigm is outdated and horribly flawed. And while he doesn't abandon the "left/right" model, Muller's model is quite similar to what Matt Mittan showed me in 2000...
Personally, I think this is a much greater and more accurate take on modern politics. It squarely places both liberalism and conservatism as less free mindsets than libertarianism: a school of thought which is enjoying considerable growth even if the party bearing its name has not of late. However, I would extend this range a bit further to the right and put "anarchy" on that fringe. In my mind, that is the ideal: personal liberty that stops short of all-out chaos. "Voluntary order", as V puts it in the graphic novel V for Vendetta.
Regardless of minor details, this is still a much better portrait of political reality than is the tired and obsolete version that most of our politicians and media and too many businesses (and more than a few religious folks) expect us to buy into.
But then: most of them have a vested interest in keeping the status quo going, aye?
It came to me when I happened to catch tonight's CBS Evening News (which I don't usually watch at all).
Want to know how to economically revitalize the newspaper and television news industries, and increase enlightenment among the general public in one fell swoop?
It's very simple: ban the words "conservative" and "liberal" from usage by professional journalists.
Those words are worse than useless. They are woefully outdated terminology. The only function of "liberalism" and "conservatism" is to excuse one's own intellectual laziness.
(And truth be known, I'm seeing a lot of laziness in CBS's reporting tonight... but not really more than one would expect from CNN or Fox News either.)
That's no doubt a big reason why television and print journalism is suffering a slow and lingering death. The alternatives on the Internet - which are not confining themselves to a paradigm that was faulty well before it was obsolete - are attracting a vast audience wanting and demanding a fresh look at things replete with new ideas. Dumbed-down "debate" along the conservative/liberal lines is horridly boring... and doesn't represent reality at all.
People are getting tired of fakery and illusion. There is a dire and growing hunger for truth that we haven't known very much in living memory. And if the traditional media has any desire at all to survive, it's left with no choice but to commit to the higher standard of ideas, and abandon adherence to the lowest common denominator of cheap ideologies.
Who the hell do these people think they're kidding?
WHERE was this kind of concern from the Republicans about "billions of taxpayer dollars" between the years 2001 and early 2009, when they had the White House and for most of that time control of the House and Senate?
George W. Bush and his allies misspent more money from the public treasury than any other presidential administration in modern American history. Thus far the fiscal practices of Barack Obama have not been intrinsically different or substantially more wasteful than those of his predecessor. And it could be readily argued that Bush and his Republican colleagues certainly paved the way for whatever Obama will be doing for the next three or seven years.
The Republicans may complain about Obama's reckless abandon... but it was certainly the modern GOP that showed Obama and the Democrat party how to do it big and bold and without apology.
I figured this was going to happen if Barack Obama won the presidential election: self-professed "conservatives" would be quick to blast Obama and the Democrats for violating the Constitution... when in fact those same conservatives have turned a blind eye at every opportunity during the past eight years when "their guy" George W. Bush did the same.
That's the kind of hypocrisy that I cannot forgive. And so far as the "Christian" ones go, it tells me that they are not interested in the truth at all.
Chuck Baldwin agrees, writing in his latest essay. The "Constitutional crisis" that many conservatives claim is there because of the dubious nature of Obama's birthplace is diminished, because these conservatives refused to condemn their own just as equally...
Many conservatives seem to be obsessed with this controversy, calling it a "constitutional crisis." The fact is, however, we have been in a "constitutional crisis" for years! The problem is, most conservatives only get worked up over a potential abridgement of constitutional government when it serves their partisan political purposes. In other words, when a Democrat appears guilty of constitutional conflict, conservatives "go ballistic," but when Republicans are equally culpable of constitutional conflict, they yawn with utter indifference.
(snip)
But, again, most conservatives care little about the Constitution's requirement that a President be a "natural born Citizen." Like liberals, most conservatives are afflicted with a very debilitating disease that I call Selective Constitutionalism. They only want to apply constitutional government when it helps Republicans or hurts Democrats. Most of them really could not care less about adherence to the Constitution. If they did, they would have been up in arms for the last eight years as President George W. Bush repeatedly ignored--and even trampled--the U.S. Constitution.
Where were these "constitutional" conservatives when George W. Bush was assuming dictatorial-style powers and contravening Fourth Amendment prohibitions against warrantless searches and seizures? Where were they when Bush was ordering our emails, letters, and phone calls to be intercepted by federal police agencies without court oversight? Where were they when Bush was obliterating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments? Where were they when Bush overturned Posse Comitatus by Executive Order? Where were they when Bush dismantled the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus? Where were they when Bush lied to the American people about the invasion of Iraq and took the United States to war without a Declaration of War from Congress? Where were conservatives when Bush turned nine U.S. military installations over to the United Arab Emirates? Where were they when Bush ordered his Department of Transportation to open up America's airlines to foreign ownership? Where were they when President Bush nullified (using "signing statements") over 1,100 statutes he did not like? Where were they as President Bush and his fellow Republicans reauthorized one of the most egregiously unconstitutional pieces of legislation in modern memory: the USA Patriot Act? Where were they when Bush signed the blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold Act? I could go on and on...
Baldwin is correct, again. But to those who are looking more for rationale supporting their ideology than daring to question whether that ideology is even right, it won't matter.
And now, writing in Jewish World Review (a very good publication, I might add), Cal Thomas doesn't just echo those same sentiments, he articulates them far better than I could.
Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?
I opt for trying something else...
Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?
The essence of Thomas's piece is of such brilliance, that I sincerely believe that every self-declared "evangelical"/"conservative" church in America would do well to read it from the pulpit... and take his wisdom to heart. Click here to read the rest of his column.
I originally had much more to say about this, but I'm going to dispense with the flowery rhetoric and cut to the heart of the matter...
The so-called "evangelical conservative Christians" had damned well better look in a mirror if they want to see who is most responsible for Barack Obama winning the race for President on Tuesday.
And now there is no reason to be angry, and no rationale for "blaming God" for Obama's victory, as I have seen too many Christians seriously doing. God had nothing to do with Obama winning. If anything, He let the people of America have what they wanted... and He absolutely played fair with many of those who profess Him as Lord.
"Christian conservatives" paved the way to Obama's historic win because they sold out their values for sake of worldly power.
People like James Dobson and the Focus on the Family crowd: they are the some of the ones most at fault. So too are many of the "preachers" that I have read and found myself listening to on the radio (like WPIP and Ron Baity of Berean Baptist Church out of Winston-Salem). They decided long ago that reaching the lost of this world wasn't their biggest priority. Instead they wanted to "sit at the king's table". Websites like Free Republic (yeah I'm looking at you Jim Robinson, ya first-order hypocrite) became too fixated on obtaining power. They lusted for the power they thought they could have so much, that they didn't bother to ask themselves if they should have had it to begin with. And still others, like Presidential Prayer Team, turned the office of President into a high priesthood of material might: something that would have horrified the Founding Fathers. So it is that in the past eight years George W. Bush - a man of weak character and no sincere Christ-like qualities - became such a paragon of virtue that it became on par with blasphemy to object to his "wisdom".
These and many others became so obsessed with destroying the enemy (like "liberals") that they became the enemy.
They rejected the God of Heaven and instead chose to worship a god of fortresses. They, quite honestly, chose the god of this world and what he was offering them.
They chose against putting their faith in the God of Jesus Christ.
That's not to make a judgment against Obama's spiritual condition at all. But because of the spiritual condition of many of his enemies, Barack Obama is now going to be their President.
They brought this on themselves. And if they have any shred of conscience, the self-proclaimed "Christian leaders" like James Dobson and Pat Roberton and their ilk will stop looking for excuses and already trying to regain power in 2012, and turn their own hearts toward repentance instead. Not for sake of temporal advantage, but purely because they desire God's will... without trying to bend Him to their wishes.
Across the country, rather than stand on principle, hundreds of thousands of pastors, Christians, and pro-life conservatives capitulated and groveled before John McCain's neocon agenda. In doing so, they forfeited any claim to truth, and they abandoned any and all fidelity to constitutional government. They should rip the stories of Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego out of their Bibles. They should never again tell their children, parishioners, and radio audiences the importance of standing for truth and principle. They have made a mockery of Christian virtue. No wonder a majority of the voting electorate laughs at us Christians. No wonder the GOP crashed and burned last Tuesday.
Again, it wasn't Barack Obama who destroyed conservatism; it was George W. Bush, John McCain, and the millions of evangelical Christians who supported them. And until conservatives find their backbone and their convictions, they deserve to remain a burnt-out, has-been political force. They have no one to blame but themselves.
I have said it many times over the past several months: there is no faith to be had in politics. The Christians of this land would do well to understand that, if they want there to be anything of America at all to bestow to their children.
In case anyone's wondering: currently I'm registered as a Republican. I helped a friend run for statewide office this election season as his treasurer, running on a platform of parental choice in education. Prior to that I ran for office myself, partly regarding issues of fiscal conservatism. In my opinion Ronald Reagan was the last real President that America has had and I'm very thankful that I got to drive to Washington D.C. a few years ago to pay my respects as his casket lay in state at the Capitol.
I never vote for the party though. I've voted for Republicans and Democrats and Libertarians and independents and a lot of people in between since I first registered to vote several years ago (the day after my eighteenth birthday).
I would never vote for Barack Obama. The man's social spending ideas are a catastrophe waiting to happen. Neither can I ever vote for John McCain: this is a man bankrupt of any principle and I absolutely cannot believe that so many professed "conservatives" are now lining up to support him. This was the Senator who pushed through McCain-Feingold, fercryingoutloud. And as I've said before: any man who dumps his wife just so he can have a younger woman, does not have the moral fiber to be given the responsibility of the most powerful office on Earth.
Now y'all know where I'm coming from. Which brings us to the matter of Sarah Palin. A woman who I have had great admiration for.
Until now.
And trust me: this has nothing to do with what is going on with her family at this moment.
When McCain announced that Palin would be his running mate, I didn't know what to make of it. That Palin, who had previously expressed support for Ron Paul (a candidate as unlike McCain as there's apt to be) would now hitch her wagon to McCain didn't make any sense to me. And after considering it at length, my first assumption was that Palin is a very good governor, who has no idea what she is being drawn into and is perhaps not ready for this at all.
Let me put it another way: I thought that Palin was being used as a tool by the McCain campaign. As one friend put it, Palin as a running mate was analogous to putting lipstick on a pig. She's got a tremendous reputation and is by widespread acclaim "easy on the eyes", but she does nothing to change the fact that John McCain himself has a horrible record on so-called "conservative" issues. Palin, many have told me over the past few days, is only meant to be a distraction from the real John McCain.
Then I started, for the first time, to take a seriously hard look at Sarah Palin's record as mayor of Wasilla, and then governor of Alaska.
And you know what?
There's no way that I could support Sarah Palin now, even if she were to run for President herself (which I earlier had suggested I wouldn't mind happening).
In fact, the notion about Sarah Palin being a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world, is now downright scary.
It was her record as mayor of Wasilla that sent the first red flag popping up in my mind. When she was sworn in after being elected in 1996, the town of Wasilla, Alaska had no debt. When she left, the town was twenty-two million dollars in the hole. We're talking a town with a population of about five thousand souls. My own hometown has about three times that amount, and I don't think it's ever been that much in the red.
Where did all that money go on Palin's watch? Much of it went to a new sports and entertainment complex. A bit went to a new park. None of it apparently went to actually improving the infrastructure of Wasilla or toward urban planning. I'm now hearing plenty of horror stories about how the town is a cacaphonic sprawl of bad streets, run-down buildings and big-box retailers like Wal-Mart.
But think about it: Wasilla went from owing no money, to owing $22 million during Palin's tenure. Does that sound like sound economic conservatism to anyone?
Then the tales came out Palin's dictatorial style: how she set down a policy that no city employee could talk with the press without her permission, and how she fired the town's respected librarian and lost a police chief (in addition to several others who she tossed out) because she believed they weren't "loyal" enough to her. So forget financial discipline: now we're dealing with matters of personal discipline and humbleness as a public servant. Palin apparently thought that since she was now mayor, she could be "the decider" of Wasilla. She quickly filled the vacant positions with people that she had previous relationships with. It began a pattern of cronyism that continued into her time as Governor of Alaska and is now come back to haunt her in the form of a state trooper firing scandal.
Maybe some of this could be attributed to being "young" and "fresh" on the job. Some eagerness to over-excel. Kinda like how Barney on The Andy Griffith Show is always getting in trouble because he wants Mayberry to be like a big city rife with organized crime. That's a heap of fun if we're watching a Sixties-era television comedy... but in real life, when the pattern persists from small-town mayor to state governor, it stops being funny or excusable.
It was how Palin became mayor of Wasilla in the first place that finally convicted me to no longer be able to give her any credence as someone I would ever want to be within a hair's breadth of so much power. In what is usually a non-partisan, friendly election in small town America, Palin injected her mayoral race with "wedge issues" like abortion. She received heavy backing from the Alaskan state Republican Party. At one point she was apparently making it out that she was going to be Wasilla's "first Christian mayor".
How is abortion possibly an issue for a sleepy burg of five thousand people tucked away in a valley in Alaska? That's like trying to teach A.P. history in what's supposed to be a high school woodshop class.
Palin's campaign for mayor of Wasilla had little to do with actual issues, and too much to do with exploiting people's emotions. That's how she came to elected office to begin with: not by appealing to intellect, but by playing off of base psychology.
Which brings me to the final reason that I will share for now about why I cannot ever support Sarah Palin being in the Executive Branch of the United States Government...
...namely, that the Book of Revelation is not a foreign policy manual.
Understand this about me too: I'm a follower of Jesus Christ. I've been a Christian for going on a dozen years now. And even before then I saw how having a faith in God is not something that is supposed to be used as a weapon against other people or other countries. In my opinion, God has not blessed America because America doesn't care about God anyway. Too many self-proclaimed Christians in this land think nothing of exploiting God for their own temporal motives, however. That's something that I not only cannot stand, it scares the hell out of me.
So now witness Sarah Palin, as Governor of Alaska, speaking before a church service and telling the congregants that the war in Iraq is a "task that is from God"...
Anyone else see that movie Jesus Camp? Anyone else think that Sarah Palin seems way too much of that same mindset?
As Christians, we are supposed to represent the Kingdom of God to those that we come in contact with. We are meant to do so by loving them, in spite of their beliefs or what their opinion is of us. We are called to love even our enemies. That doesn't mean that we don't defend ourselves when we must, because I believe that is a moral right for individuals and families and nations. But we were never given an ordained duty to seek out and destroy our enemies in the name of Christ! That's just more of the world's way, and not God's at all. And it is the absolute height of arrogance to assume that God's plan is our own plan enough that we have a license to believe He will grant a blanket blessing on all of our endeavors.
The more that I read of Sarah Palin, the more that I cannot but believe that the woman is an adherent of Dominion Theology. As a theology professor of mine put it ten years ago, that's something that "will beat a path straight to Auschwitz". And as I've studied it since then, the less that I've been able to deny that he was right.
If for no other reason, this alone is why I cannot trust Sarah Palin. God Only can judge her heart, but in my mind the woman is way too infatuated with the power of God and not nearly enough with the love of God.
That won't deter a lot of the so-called "evangelicals" from adoring her, from supporting her without question however. I've even heard a few of them quite seriously declare that Palin is a modern-day "Deborah for America". They're the ones who still believe that America has a special place in God's divine plan for the world. They're also the ones who tend to hold that God allowed George W. Bush to be elected so that it would "help" to eventually trigger Armageddon.
Don't think that I don't know what I'm talking about here. I used to attend a school that was eventually taken over by such apostles of the Apocalypse. And Sarah Palin, now that I've examined her, is precisely the kind of politician that they have been hoping and praying for. Maybe... maybe... even more than George W. Bush turned out to have really been.
These people have forgotten that what makes America special is her virtue. And in the name of God, these people - who should have been the most virtuous - gave up their virtue for sake of a little power in the fleeting span of their lifetime.
And now it is a question of whether there is any virtue left for their children, and their children's children.
And it looks like they're ramping-up to sacrifice even more.
Suddenly, the idea of a John McCain presidency, which I've always felt would be a disastrous continuation of the policies of Bush, threatens to become something much worse than most of us have yet imagined.
There is nothing "conservative" about Sarah Palin, I must sadly conclude. If anything, she seems cut from the neoconservative cloth that espouses bigger government and glorious empire. To her credit, Sarah Palin seems very much to be an all-American wife and "action mom". I certainly respect her strong stance for the Second Amendment. But her track record as an elected official indicates that if given far more power, she would continue the precedent that the current White House administration has set for detaching the American government from the American people.
There is nothing about that which is the least bit conservative.
That's still not enough to prompt me to vote for Obama, however. Nothing could possibly entice me to do that. So this election year I'm either casting a write-in vote for Ron Paul, or writing in what is rapidly becoming the most sensible alternative to the mess that this country is hellbent on becoming...
MSNBC has an article about conservative-leaning members of the Republican Party who are trying to de-rail what they see as John McCain's extreme policies regarding immigration, the environment and several other issues. Lots of the Republican "grassroots" don't want McCain's views to be implemented in the party's official platform when they have their upcoming national convention.
But this quote by a McCain spokesperson says it all...
"We are confident that this process will produce a platform that all Republicans will enthusiastically support," said Joe Pounder, a McCain spokesman. "Our party is united, and will continue to work together to elect John McCain in November."
This is by and large the line by the Republican National Committee as well.
Once again, as has happened too many times from "the party of principle", the Republicans are going to throw out all principle just for sake of getting "an electable candidate".
And you wouldn't believe the stuff that I'm seeing on the Free Republic site these days so far as getting McCain to win goes. It's... well, downright Clintonian how they're thinking. Rush Limbaugh used to quip that the motto of the Clinton Administration was "How can we fool them today?" For too many of the "Party Über Alles" Republican die-hards, that's now become their own mindset as well.
Back to the topic at hand: there are still plenty of true-believers in the Republican rank and file who sincerely care about issues like stopping illegal immigration and abortion. But it's now well past time for them to leave the Republican Party. Because the Republican leadership does not give a damn about such things. The fact that it has fought tooth and nail against its own candidates who are sincerely interested in such matters, and that it has now produced someone like John McCain to be its standard-bearer, screams more about what's wrong with it than I could possibly devote the time to writing about here.
Hell, this is the same party leadership that forced George W. Bush on us... 'nuff said.
Although I do not call myself a conservative (or any other label), I do profess that my own leanings are very much toward what would be defined as "conservative" in the traditional sense. And I'm saying once again: real conservatives have no place, and are not welcome, in the Republican Party by its leadership. And it is foolish to continue putting any measure of faith in that party at all.
No, I'm not voting for Obama either. I'm not voting for either one of the two clowns from "the major parties" for President. As things stand now it'll be either a vote for Ron Paul (as I've already indicated I'll probably do) or Chuck Baldwin.
But McCain or Obama? If I was forced to choose either from among those two or be on the receiving end of a Coca-Cola enema, I'll pick the enema.
Anyone left who still believes that we have to "work within the system" to effect change in this country had better read this and think real hard about what they're advocating.
Because the undeniable truth is: the system no longer works. The system has not worked in a long time. The system is hopelessly broken. We're just now becoming able to see how bad the damage is.
And anyone who still believes we must abide by the status quo and stay within the confines of the system is... well, an idiot.
The status of the Republican Party of the United States isn't much different from that of the Communist Party of China, when you think about it. Both are controlled by hardliner old guards who won't bend and will crush like a bug any new blood that tries to bring fresh ideas to the scene. I'm not talking about Republicans as a whole mind you: I'm talking about the Republican National Committee and too many of the individual states' party leaders. Witness, f'rinstance, the lengths of chicanery they've gone to in order to shut out Ron Paul: the one sincere believer of Constitutional rule of law who's run as a candidate from that party.
At the statewide convention of the Republican Party in Nevada yesterday, the Ron Paul delegates were set to win control in a super-majority of votes. And then GOP officials actually SHUT DOWN their own convention to keep that from happening. As of this morning Nevada Republicans don't have delegates to send to the national convention. All because their party bosses insist on sending pro-John McCain delegates.
I'm especially disgusted at what one McCain shill is quoted as saying in that story...
"But at the end of the day, part of the job of being a national delegate is to do what is best for the party in November. And that means supporting the party’s nominee."
Just drag everyone kicking and screaming into the smoke-filled room and get it over with already, why don't ya?
Here's a delegate to the convention, who posted a YouTube video about what happened yesterday...
And then I received an e-mail from a friend who said that the same thing has been happening here in North Carolina as well...
The same thing happened at the NC 2nd District. Only they allowed counties to choose the Delegates and when the Ron Paul folks called for a point of order (40 of them) someone else made a motion to dismiss and the chair called it.
My friend further commented that "It amazes me that the GOP will eat their young just because they don't agree with them."
This is the "democracy" that we're trying to convince other countries is a good thing that they should adopt?
And how in the Hell does anyone even remotely like John McCain become the anointed candidate of the supposedly "conservative" Republican Party? More to the point: Why should anyone of good conscience feel obligated, in any way, to support McCain? Is personal conscience the price that must be paid for ultimate loyalty to a political machine?
Has America finally arrived at that terrible line where both rule of law and private character are made sacrifice for sake of power?
Because if so, then America is lost already.
Here's what I think: the Republican rank-and-file, the "grassroots", is finally waking up to what it's own leadership has been doing to it for going on decades now. And that's the last thing the GOP leadership wants. Their control is now more threatened than ever before. And it's become patently obvious that the Republican National Committee and other GOP elites actively despise the grassroots Republicans.
And now it's been laid bare before everyone.
It wouldn't surprise me if this election year is the final one for the Republican Party as a viable political force in this country. The rift between the sincere believers in limited government and the "blue blood" party management that's exploiting them threatens to become the greatest political divorce in this country's modern memory.
And I can't help but think that maybe that will be a good thing. Something as inherently corrupt as the two major parties should be let to collapse and fall into ruins. The Republican leadership should have been thankful for Ron Paul, and for the wisdom and fresh perspective he brought with him. Instead it conspired to shut him down at every conceivable turn.
Now it's going to have to pay the price. If Clinton or Obama win the White House, the GOP's honchos will have no one to blame but themselves.
In his article Baldwin argues what a lot of us have been saying for awhile: that too many Christians in America worship the Republican party and the power of government more than they give devotion to God, just as the children of Israel bowed to Baal. Baldwin chastises those who have supported George W. Bush and has harsh words toward any who might consider voting for John McCain...
I will say it straight out: any Christian or conservative who supports John McCain has no principles left worth defending!(emphasis mine)
Can anyone remember when George W. Bush ran for the White House in 2000, promising the American people that he would pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy? So much for that promise.
George W. Bush has orchestrated the most meddlesome, interventionist, and nation-building foreign policy of any President in modern memory. And Christians became his most vocal supporters. Now, John McCain gets in front of international television and jokes about bombing Iran, and once again, Christians stand up and cheer.
Christians have swallowed the Bush/McCain Kool-Aid as surely as did the followers of Jim Jones. They are drunk with denial and deception.
Bush promised the American people that he would promote less government spending. He then turned around and led the U.S. government to borrow and spend more taxpayer dollars than any President since Lyndon Johnson. And, again, Christians looked the other way.
Some Christians would say they are supporting President Bush because he is "one of us." Of course, this reasoning betrays logic. If George W. Bush is truly "one of us," he should be held to a higher--not lower--standard. That we would be willing to look the other way because Bush is "one of us" is repulsive to true Christian principles. Plus, it brings Christianity as a whole into disrepute with unbelievers. And this is exactly what has happened. Instead of unbelievers being attracted to Christ and His Word, George W. Bush--and the Christians who follow him--have turned unbelievers away from Christ. Bush and Company have made it harder--not easier--to present Christ to a lost and dying world. And that goes for people in foreign countries as well as people in America.
However, I am convinced that the reason Christians support President Bush is not because he is a professing born-again Christian. I say that because these same people are now also supporting John McCain, a man who has never professed a born-again relationship with Jesus Christ. Oh, he claims to be a "Christian" in a general sense, but what politician doesn't?
McCain is also a man who has consistently betrayed conservative principles throughout his political career. He has even lampooned and denigrated Christian people, calling them "agents of intolerance." Yet, today Christians are supporting John McCain. Why? It is not because of his religious profession. It is not because of a conservative track record. Why are they supporting him, then? Why are they willing to surrender their convictions? There is only one reason: John McCain (like George W. Bush) is a REPUBLICAN.
There it is: countless millions of professing Christians will eagerly abandon their commitment to constitutional government and Biblical principles in order to accommodate a Republican Presidential candidate. In the minds of many Christians, the Republican Party is more important than the U.S. Constitution. It is more important than conservative principles or even Biblical injunctions. In essence, the Republican Party has become an IDOL in the hearts and minds of many professing believers.
So, how can we ask God to bless America when God's children have set up the groves of idolatry in their hearts? How can we expect God to heal our land when Christian pastors, Sunday School teachers, deacons, ushers, and faithful church members place more loyalty and allegiance in a political party than they do in the very Word and principles of God?
As surely as the pagans of the Old Testament worshipped before the gods of Baal and Ashteroth, many Christians worship before the GOP. They are willing to sacrifice their children to the policies and practices of unscrupulous, evil politicians--as long as they have an "R" behind their names. They will turn their back on their pastors, their churches, their friends, and their commitments before they will turn their backs on the Republican Party.
To many Christians, God cannot work in America outside the Republican Party. God cannot bless America, except through the Republican Party. There is no success, no help, no assistance, and no redemption except through the Republican Party. If this is not idolatry, I do not know what is!
There's plenty more at the link. I don't usually copy and paste this much from another's article, but in this case I thought it's something that needed to be shouted from the rooftops.
I've a nasty suspicion that this is only a taste of what's barreling toward us...
So I was headed west down I-40 from a day trip to Raleigh (which I'll be posting about tomorrow) this afternoon and around Burlington, I started flicking through radio stations.
And as I was going across the AM dial just after 5 p.m. I happened to catch some pastor preaching with all due exuberance and conviction that Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama is "the Antichrist". This pastor also added that just as the Antichrist does not have "a single Christian ounce in his body" that Obama is going to Hell.
I checked the frequency. It was 880 AM. Which means it was a broadcast of WPIP, a radio ministry out of Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem.
Not that this really surprises me.
Apart from sporadic music, from sunrise to sunset WPIP's broadcasting is pretty much wall-to-wall a network of "good ol' boys" who like to preach variations on (1) the King James Version is the only Bible and any other translation is a work of Satan, (2) independent fundamentalist conservative Baptist churches are the only real churches (similar to the local "Church Of Christ In Name Only" that's been talked about here lately) and (3) Democrats and "liberals" are evil and are all Hell-bound sinners.
You can get a sense of what WPIP stands for just from its bumpers. WPIP's staff likes to call it the "conservative Christian radio voice". Berean Baptist's head pastor Ron Baity is often heard proclaiming that WPIP is "the way radio ought to be": apparently holding to the notion that to contend for the faith means aping Rush Limbaugh. And then sometimes I hear this station boast that it sticks to the "old paths".
Yeah, they're "old paths" all right: as old as Babylon.
Any Christians that obsess on the American flag, American military might, love of George W. Bush, hatred toward "liberals", and electing Republican candidates far more than they do with serving Christ in love and humility, are not Christians that God can possibly bless the work of. I'm hard-pressed to believe that these "Christians" worship anything but power.
And part of me has to wonder how many of these preachers have truly experienced the salvation that can only come with the grace of God. Think about it: How can so many professed "Christians" in America be free from sin if they can't even be free from the Republican Party?
But then, any "Christian radio station" that sincerely believes the world needs to listen to a cult leader like the late Lester Roloff is hard to take seriously, anyway.
According to WPIP's program log for Monday through Friday, this would make the program that I heard this afternoon that of Meadowview Baptist Church in Winston-Salem. I found the church's website. If this is indeed the same show that I heard this afternoon - although this being AM radio and how lax WPIP seems to be in maintaining its website, this is not a confirmed certainty - then its pastor Robert Hutchens is apparently the one who's already consigning Barack Obama to Hell.
If you're a longtime reader of this blog, then you know where I'm coming from. I don't call myself a "liberal" any more than I call myself a "conservative". I don't profess to being an active supporter of any political party. I'm just a guy trying to do what's right and what God would have me to do. So nobody can claim that I'm trying to pursue a "political agenda" by taking these supposedly "God-called pastors" to task for their un-Christlike motives and methods.
First of all, it's not this preacher's place to already condemn someone to Hell. As long as anyone... any person... has breath in his or her lungs, he or she is free to call upon God for forgiveness. In rashly stating that Obama deserves Hell, this minister is forgetting that he himself deserves Hell also, just as we all do.
And it's a much worse thing to practically be gloating about Obama or anyone else going to Hell. Especially if the basis of that condemnation is something so silly as a political dispute.
But what bothered me especially is that this preacher, whoever he is, is way too consumed with the patterns and politics of this world. Now, I do believe that we as Christians should be fully active wherever it is that God puts us, and that if they happen to live in America then this means living up to the stewardship that God has charged us with over this land. But that means taking our roles as citizens seriously... and that's not something that's possible by blindly following a political party! And these "men of God" are trying to goad us into doing just that, when they seek to rile up our emotions.
For someone who claims to be a "man of God", this kind of vitriol is symptomatic of an unregenerate mind. A mind that is yet carnal and has not been transformed like unto that of Christ.
It's a shame that these "conservative Christians" are scouring the gutter. As it is, they show nothing in their actions that could convince the lost of the existence of a real and loving God. Not when they focus more on this world than they do on Heaven.
And I think we can expect worse from some of them as the months progress.
Maybe if they would repent of their own arrogance, their prayers that America as a nation might repent could come true.
Will that happen? Could these people do that?
Let's put it this way: I have faith in God. I do not have faith in too many of my fellow Christians.
Something I haven't let y'all in on nearly as much as I should have: I am a die-hard Bulldogs fan. When the girl of your dreams is a grad student at the University of Georgia - the school whose motto should be "Play Football or Die" - you tend to get caught up in the spirit of the place very quickly as you start making regular visits to Athens.
Seriously though: it's a great university. Even though I'll always be proud of my alma mater Elon, you can often find me wearing a Georgia Bulldogs t-shirt whenever I'm out. So I was especially glad to find that this very good article about presidential candidate Ron Paul was written by J. Patrick Rhamey for The Red and Black, the student newspaper at UGA ...
What are our traditional values? Looking across history, they are most certainly not wire-tapping, secret prisons, and preemptive wars. The Republican Party gained power with Newt Gingrich to minimize the size of government, lower taxes, encourage free trade, and get government out of our lives.
Unfortunately, they did the opposite and have paid the price.
It is time to elect someone who represents the political views of Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower. A patriot who will not put our brave fighting men and women needlessly into harm's way. A candidate who supports policies of economic growth for the middle class such as lower taxes and minimizing government. A man of outstanding character who has been married to the same woman for fifty years and opposes abortion. A veteran who will secure our borders. This is the type of Reagan Republican we need back in the White House.
I encourage Georgians of all parties to take a moment to investigate Paul as a candidate on his website, www.ronpaul2008.com. In this great struggle against terror, amidst the many successes and setbacks, I fear we may be losing sight of that which our fighting men and women are dying to protect: individual freedom. If we lose sight of that, the terrorists have most surely accomplished their goals.
We must elect a candidate who will pursue a humble, defensive foreign policy. One who will bring our fighting men and women home to protect us here, not in Iraq, Afghanistan or Iran.
To quote another great Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing."
As the only Republican candidate who took that advice seriously and opposed the war in Iraq, let's give Ron Paul a chance.
I've been thinking for awhile: even though I'm no longer a believer in political parties, I cannot help but think that if the Republican party does not steer toward the direction that Ron Paul represents, it will no longer be able to claim to be a party of principle after this next presidential election. Unfortunately I'm seeing most, if not all, of the party leadership putting their support behind the usual "contenders" of shallow character.
It's like this: the Republicans must decide that they either want reality, or illusion. It's time for them to take the proverbial red pill and put their money where their mouth is.
And if most people in the GOP seriously believe that Fred Thompson is going to be anything better than George W. Bush, then that party can kiss whatever respect they still have goodbye. It's almost gone anyway, after the fiasco of our border situation.
