Do You Love It?

I have been considering why this election means so much.  I watch the debates with my stomach in knots, just wanting to jump in and help as though McCain is my child competing.  Soccer moms surely recognize this feeling.  My goal is to send out something documented, factual, and honest (read indisputable) every day.  There is a lot of information; I will not be short on material, but right now this is emotional and I can’t focus on that. 

My country is in danger.  There is no question about it, regardless of party.  The fix is in the fight.  Right now, we have to fight against greed.  We have to fight against terror.  We have to fight against apathy.  We have to fight against a media that is working for ratings, not for public protection.  It’s exhausting to carry this, especially when I feel powerless to fix it.  

 

Consider the Obama presidency.  I have been reading about post-Revolutionary Russia, Lenin in charge.  Now, I am not an alarmist expecting us to descent into abject and wide-spread poverty and starvation, BUT the similarities are impossible to ignore.  The United States is ripe for change, change is necessary right now.  We are on the brink of class warfare, racial warfare, and, if Iran has its way, nuclear warfare.  We know nothing for certain except that any day we could wake to a completely different life.  People are afraid…People are angry.  The right leader is crucial at a time like this, the wrong leader could be revolutionary.  

 

Here’s the crux:  Obama has worked very subtly to ensure that anyone who speaks out against him is deemed racist.  He is igniting racial tension.  He is running on a platform that is devisive by definition as he extols unity.  Obama’s foreign policy undermines US sovereignty at every turn.  That is where the problem comes in.  There is a possibility that Obama is on to something in the interest of world peace.  It’s difficult to know, but what if we did consider the UN’s input on our economic policy?  What if we refused to protect our interests without international approval?  What if we began to negotiate with the rogue nations and a little bit of our out-dated values erodes?  Would it be so terrible to compromise a little bit in the name of world peace?  It’s time to really consider this.  We have no choice.

 

Compromising, regardless of the motivation, is a detriment to our great nation.  It may be fine for a while and people will laugh that I ever considered this, but later there will be mourning for all that was lost.  This is all we will mourn:

 

Forums like this, speaking out against proposed change. We will still have free speech in the Constitution, but this speaks to religion, which will be restricted

Economic freedom 

Competition – eroding quality in education, healthcare, and roads

Variety in production

Religious freedom – we will loose the freedom to worship as religion and world peace are completely incompatible

Private ownership of companies and real estate

 

Our government will become so large and cumbersome, any freedoms not inherently restricted will still be challenging as there will be no flexibility.  Further, poverty will be a major problem as taxation skyrockets.  Because of this taxation, the well-being of the State will be a higher priority than that of the individual.

 

This nation grew by the grace of God.  The United States of America is a gift God gave to the world, specifically to Israel, to ensure goodness prevails.  This was not a gift of compromise; we are to liberate the compromised throughout history.  Right now, we are hovering on the verge of being the compromised.  If we do not save ourselves, there is no one to come to the rescue of the American people.  We owe is to ourselves.  We owe it to the world.  We owe it to God.  We have got to elect a leader who strives for the individual.  He must love this country.  A willingness to compromise everything this country has built, to ignore the warnings and recede into history with the rest of the world, is not love of country.  It isn’t even an appreciation for all we have.  As difficult as times have become, we still have a life to be greatful here.  Simply look down the street – it is clean.  There is clea r, fresh air to breathe.  We have tap water on demand that is reliably potable.  New cars are abundant and plentiful.  Homes are plenty large.  Our children are educated.  Yes, we have to work for all of these, but true dignity comes from earning one’s way.  The more socialized a society becomes, the more disincentivized is work, again causing social decline.

 

It’s worth the fight and the knotted stomachs.  We have got to vote against Obama for president.  This man is dangerous.  He has been lying to the American public and we are so complacent nobody minds.  Lying is expected.  The man consorts consistently with individuals and organizations that are anti-American.  Even in the face of economic failure, he offers a plan that will cause further decline in our financial system.  He has no quarrel with the death of an infant at the hands of a doctor.  Regardless, his intent does not seem to be malicious.  His intent is not the problem.  The problem is that he does not LOVE this nation.  Therefore, his priorities will never be our well-being.  

Sincere Oppression

Hhmmm…It needs to be said.  Barack Obama has proven inspiring to people throughout the world, there is no denying this.  His acceptance speech was filled with Socialist ideals, which are pleasant to hear, so there is no surprise there.  I believe that most campaign and acceptance speeches come across that way, the candidate must promise something in return for votes.  Easy concept.  But Mr. Obama may be the most sincere politician I have witnessed in my lifetime.  I cannot take that from him – I believe that he means most of what he says.  I also think that he believes in himself.  He believes that he alone has the power and ideals to save this nation (from what?).  That worries me.  That is a feeling shared by Lenin, Hitler, keep going….mostly through Eastern Europe and Russia.  Any leader who believes that he alone holds the key merits caution. 

Throughout his speech on Thursday night, he mentioned that we are our brother’s and sister’s keepers to thunderous applause.  Of course, the spirit was that we should care for those around us.  I agree.  However, this is a Biblical reference he chose – not by accident.  He used Biblical references throughout his speech no doubt to prove the authenticity of his faith.  Can’t fault that.  But this particular reference that he used repeatedly is found in Genesis 4.  Cain says to God, very sarcastically (could this be the first use of sarcasm?), “I don’t know.  [where my brother is - the one I just killed]  Am I my brother’s keeper?”  Genesis 4:9.  I am certain that no sarcasm was intended by Barack Obama, but we should consider the implications of being charged with the well-being of another by our government.  In fact, let me say it again, in bold, on it’s own…

“WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS OF BEING CHARGED WITH THE WELL-BEING OF ANOTHER BY OUR GOVERNMENT.” 

This is what this man running for President expects of us.  More importantly, it is what he expects of himself, as leader.  Do not forget, when Cain uttered these words, he had just killed his brother.  Murder is by far the greatest form of oppression, but oppression none the less. 

A very wise Katrina survivor was on the radio yesterday morning.  Until the hurricane, she had been a meth dealer; that was how she supported herself and her “family.”  When asked if she went back to dealing when she made her way back to New Orleans, she said, “No.  Once I got out of that life, I saw that I was keeping people down – you know the junkies.  I kept them there.  I didn’t want that anymore.”  It is powerful to be able to see how your own intentions whether good or bad affect those around you.  Socialism, while sounding nice, is an oppressive ideal.  It disincentivizes work, which Obama himself says breeds dignity, and it keeps people in their place of apathy.  This is not the life that our founding fathers sacrificed for.

That which is Caesar’s

Barack Hussein Obama was surprisingly dull of speech tonight.  I anticipated a rhetorical treat of epic proportions, but here I sit unfulfilled.  It was standard fare for the acceptance speech – promise the world, pander to the masses.  And hey – he wants to fight injustice?  He should do something about the $80.00 charges for parking.  Yes, $80.00, Mr. Obama, let’s see you move your feet (as you say) and take care of that!

My actual concern is not the parking or those foolish enough to pay for it.  The unintended consequence of this speech is the argument made for the separation of church and state.  Any argument over supposed moral standards in government brings this to mind.  Our politicians will argue to the death, admonishing us for not caring about mothers separated from their children because of our immigration laws.  They will belittle us for sending our (volunteer) troops into battle to die.  They will belittle us for not sending our troops to the right battle.  They will question why not everyone deserves the same standard of living, why we aren’t better at sharing. 

This speaks to time-tested Biblical wisdom.  Matthew 22:21 says, “Give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s; give to God what is God’s.”  Of course, Christians use this passage to enourage each other to pay their taxes and to tithe without conflict.  The passage is about taxes.  But could we apply this beyond taxation?  When our candidates win elections by tugging at heartstrings, it indicates that our government is much bigger than it should be.  We have lost sight of our government’s role.  Our government was established to impartially protect us according to the letter of the law, to build roads that ensure interstate commerce and mobility, and to standardize currency.  If our government acted as just that, an impartial entity, enforcing our laws and encouraging interstate commerce, the rest of us would be free to care for those less fortunate in any way we see fit.  Frankly, I want the government to deport illegal immigrants.  They have broken a law set forth for the protection of our country.  However, on a personal level, if an immigrant comes to me hungry – legal or not – I want to offer help.  I want to offer compassion.  I do not want to be labeled.  I do not want to be concerned that my act of compassion will be misinterpreted for a disregard or worse, distaste, of the law.

A national argument over morality will never be won; it will, however, divide our great nation and weaken our people who face adversity.  I don’t want to engage in dialogue over who’s right on stem cell research.  Companies who can afford to do the research should do so.  I can make a choice when it comes to participating in that research and in the finished product.  In the meantime, I don’t want tax dollars funding something wrought from moral division. It forces a person into supporting that which he never would on his own.  That is not the role of government.  My ideals are between God and me.  It is counterproductive to use these ideals to garner votes.

The most clear cut issue here is that of gay marriage.  Should the government be involved in determining family values?  Could marriage be a sacred union performed in front of the Lord by a representative of the church while the government tends to the mess of who gets on whose health insurance and who’s visiting whom in the hospital?  It seems that if an issue is morally devisive, the government has no place in it.  Let God have marriage.  Let God’s people feed the starving.  Let God’s people act as a moral barometer.  Let the government protect us corporately as we act personally.