Introduction
Yesterday I exhorted the saints at Christ Church to remember their down ballot duties. I did not mention any specific candidates or issues there because worship is not the place for partisan politics. But it is a place for God’s people to be reminded that their presence in this society is inescapably political.
And that means that Christians will not display the same demographic spread as everyone else does—if that happened, it would simply mean that the salt had lost its savor, and was fit for nothing but to be trampled on by men. Taken as a group, if we limit our use of the word Christian to those who believe the Bible is true, and who have the Spirit of God, we will not celebrate sodomy as a human right, we will not change on the dignity of the unborn, and we will protest the persecution of faithful Christians who refuse to use their professional skills to join in on all the mandatory North Korean applause.
But those are our instincts, and sometimes information that is a bit more specific can be helpful. Since this blog is my own private space, I am not under the same constraints as I would be in the sanctuary.
HJR5: The Big Deal
For those of us in Idaho, the ballot tomorrow contains a wonderful measure fetchingly called HJR5. Every Christian who loves liberty—and that should be all of us—should get themselves down to the voting station first thing to vote for this baby. As you vote for it, others in the polling place should hear loud whoops coming from your general direction.
The measure is a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Idaho. It provides that the legislature can review, approve, and reject administrative rules, and that their actions in this regard are not susceptible to a gubernatorial veto. This is something that the legislature can already do by statute, but this measure puts it in the Constitution, which means it is put a little further out of the reach of the regulators, our despots-behind-desks.
Here is an explanation on why this measure is such a crucial one.
Carl Berglund
Carl is running for House seat 5-A in the state legislature against an incumbent Democrat, Paulette Jordan. This is a race where conservative Christian turnout in Moscow is crucial. Our district is a large red one, but with a rather biggish blue dot in the middle of it (Moscow). Carl is going to do very well in all the outlying areas, and simply needs to do better than expected in Moscow. If Christians here stay home because of the goon show at the top of the ballot, then they will have thrown away a real opportunity to be represented in the state legislature by someone who actually believes the way they do. I have said already that we have down ballot duties, but in this case, it is not just a down ballot duty. This is a real down ballot opportunity.
A Small Grab Bag
I have been generally happy with the Idaho delegation to Congress, and will be voting for Raul Labrador and Mike Crapo. At the local level, I will be voting for Richie Skiles for Latah County Sheriff.
Comrade or El Presidente?
The main presidential choices are between the profound corruptions of Clinton and the tawdry clownishness of Trump. I would prefer that Trump win, as I have noted before, because I think we will be in a much better position to resist the bad things that he will attempt, and we will not need to resist the good things he will attempt. Clinton will attempt nothing good, and will be a strong position to fight dirty, which she most certainly will.
I am going to be writing in Ben Sasse for president. He is not on the ballot, and so some will say this is a futile gesture. Others will applaud the futility of my gesture, but will maintain that I ought to have made a different kind of futile gesture. They want me to have made a gesture that was a little more pure—but with the purity defined according to an algorithm I haven’t figured out yet.
As I do this, I want to extend the right hand of fellowship to every Christian who feels constrained to put a bag over his head to vote for Trump. I feel your pain, as I hope you feel mine. But I do not feel the same unity impulses with that raucous group that thinks that Trump is the next Huey Long, only better and more messianic.
Remember that there are two kinds of #NeverTrumpers. The first kind is motivated by the fact that Trump is an uncouth outsider, not a member of the establishment. They do not object to Trump because he is not a conservative, but rather because he is a populist and a nationalist. Republicans voting for Clinton would be in this appalling category. If I am asked my preferences, I would rather be governed by Trump than by this kind of NeverTrumper, and I do appreciate the wrecking ball aspects of all this. If asked my preferences, I would rather be captured by the crazy pirate than by the cruel one. But—and I trust I may be forgiven for this—I still don’t want to put up a yard sign for the crazy pirate.
So there is another kind of NeverTrumper, the kind of person who objects to Trump because he is not really a conservative at all. I am in this category, in the same general place that Ben Sasse is, or Jonah Goldberg. Sasse has opposed Trump from the beginning in a principled way, and I like it. I like him.
So there you go. Hunker down, everybody.
Is there a reason you didn’t list McMullin? Trying to decide if I am going for an utterly futile Ben Sasse vote or a slightly less futile McMullin one.
I’ll be writing in McMullin here in blue CT. Pray for revival.
Write in Rick Astley, let’s Rick-roll this dumpster fire of an election!
As opposed to those amazing elections like Obama-Romney, Obama-McCain, Bush-Gore, etc.? I mean the choices were so good, it was like choosing between George Washington and Patrick Henry.
Good point, mkt. This is why I haven’t voted for a Republican or Democrat presidential candidate in 16 years. (I voted for GWB in 2000 when I was 18 years old and still young and impressionable.) I also know a guy who write in “Aragorn” for president every 4 years.
Same here…but it’s been even longer for me. I voted for the Republican candidate shortly after I turned 18…since then, it’s been Constitution Party and Libertarians. I’m voting for Trump this time, partially because he doesn’t fit the milquetoast neo-con mold.
In A.D. 1924, they asked some good ol’ boy, probably here in Tennessee, whether he’d voted for Davis or Coolidge or Lafollette, and he said, Naw, I went down and vote for Old Hickory all over again.
https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ
Just be glad you don’t live in Cali4nia! The voting is painful – every year!
> I still don’t want to put up a yard sign for the crazy pirate.
Totally understand, though I think some of the insanity is affected for effect, which of course doesn’t mean he’s good by a long stretch. He’s about as conservative as Jimmy Carter but a better actor. God have mercy on us.
When the choice is between a crazy pirate and a crazy cat lady, (who may not have any cats)
Don’t go with the crazy cat lady. ????????
I’m not voting for Trump, so that’s the same as a vote for Hillary.
But I’m also not voting for Hillary, so that’s the same as a vote for Trump.
Hey, looky there, they cancel each other out!
Another way to look at it is “Cool. I get THREE votes!”
Oh, no! You just committed voter fraud by voting twice… without even voting! And if you vote for someone else, now you voted three times!!! Oh noes! :D
(Me too.)
lol!
One comment on the write-in thing:
If you write in someone who isn’t actually running a write-in campaign & registered with your state, they just toss it and it doesn’t even show up in the “Other” category. If you write in someone who IS registered, then they have to count it as a vote for someone without a D or R behind their name. I suppose there might be reasons for doing the former, but (in a state which will undoubtedly go Clinton because D) I want my vote physically counted in the OTHER group.
That may depend on the state. In Pennsylvania, I don’t believe there’s such a thing as a write-in campaign registered with the state. I have no idea what they do with the write-in votes, though.
Doesn’t really matter what they do with them, does it?
I’m responding to a comment that describes what is done with them, so in that context, it’s part of the conversation.
In Virginia I hear they burn them on an altar before a bust of Thomas Jefferson.
It really depends on the state. In Washington, for instance, they just lump all the write-in marks together, and in the rare chance that column has the most votes, then they actually read the written-down name. (This name *does* have to be one of the registered write-in names, or then it will be thrown away.)
“Clinton will attempt nothing good…” oh come now.
Paul brings up a good point on perspective. Do you want Christ in the forefront of America or do you want evil to be raised up instead. Trump is not a sterling individual; but Hillary is evil without doubt.
This election cycle really shows the lack of Christ in our lives and in America’s day in and day out activities.
Your distinction is without a difference. Conservatism has conserved nothing and should be consigned to the fire.
There’s a third kind of #NeverTrumper — one who says if Trump is elected, then it’s the end of the conservative/religious influence in the Republican party. We would lose our power because they don’t need us anymore. I think Russell Moore et al would fit this description.
If Trump wins he might make good on his promise regarding SCOTUS appointments, but that would likely be the last fizzle of conservatism from the Grand Old Elephant.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that one of these campaigns is literally run by Satanists and the other is not. Trump may not be a professing Christian but he is fighting on the side of Christian society.
Sorry, who is the literal satanist running one of the parties? I missed that story. And if you think Trump is on the side of anything other than his own narcissistic zero-sum personal interest you are living in more of a fantasy land than your laughable confederate doctrine would suggest.
Seriously, cite some proof for the satanist claim. I am actually interested. Pony up.
Do you believe Hell is a real place?
No.
Then I don’t see why you’d care who is or isn’t a Satanist.
I also don’t see any reason to believe you care about hearing or speaking the truth.
I think that you are living in a childlike demonic fantasy land that your parents unfortunately taught you about at a young age. I call that child abuse. Go look up Marina Abrovamic’s work. She is a well-known performance artist. Not a satanist. Snopes calls this silly charge: FALSE Spirit Cooking was the title of one of her performance pieces where she painted graffiti using pig’s blood. It does not refer to a satanic practice. And since I know that you won’t because it will break the little ‘scare yourself with the idea of demons’ game you are running I… Read more »
I heard that she makes a great “ghost beef” sandwich! ????
(Cred. Guttfield)
Again: you have no reason to care about truth, thus I have no reason to listen to you.
You need the threat of eternal damnation by a ‘loving’ god who created you in the first place, no fault of your own to care about the truth? I don’t.
go to church LOL
Now hold on there a minute. You made a specific factual claim — that one of the campaigns is literally run by Satanists. Are you, or are you not, able to back up that specific factual claim? Facts are facts regardless of what randman believes about hell.
Randman, snopes is known for cooking truth into falsehoods. Using them for a reliable resource is saying the sun will rise in the west.
Yep, Snopes is a joke. Like I said, their “debunking” of the spirit cooking was laughably bad. I could’ve written an Onion-style piece that was more convincing.
Could we instead have a discussion about how we reached a point in our culture that anyone views the application of pigs’ blood to any substance whatsoever as some kind of art? Or that the person who thinks pigs’ blood is an interesting medium is an artist, let alone a “seminal” one?
I would point you towards artist Andres Serrano’s photograph Piss Christ. Now this was held up as the poster child for artistic outrage and scandal at the time but it is rather beautiful. And taken as a metaphor quite powerful. This image of Jesus Christ immersed in the human waste and filth of the world while simultaneously bathed in an ethereal glow provokes an emotional response. It is high and low at the same time and makes you think about his sacrifice in visceral terms. I never understood the ignorance surrounding that piece. It was so obvious. I am not… Read more »
It was not obvious to everyone else, including those who did not call for censorship and including many who cannot be dismissed as ignorant of modern art. Perhaps I am insufficiently appreciative of the value of urine as an artistic medium, but I found Serrano’s project to be, at the very least, childish. The notion that one’s own urine is valuable and worth saving is ordinarily outgrown at an early age. It did not make me think of Jesus’ suffering in visceral terms; it made me wonder about the state of mind of anyone who saves up his urine for… Read more »
Respectfully, It doesn’t have to be obvious to anyone else. Art can and should push boundaries and be transgressive on occasion. It can offend. It should offend if the artist wishes. It’s an idea. Ideas don’t have rights and do not deserve protection. Stravinsky’s masterpiece The Rite Of Spring caused a riot at its debut. Hard to imagine now. Also, what would metaphorical resonance would that piece be have if it was grandmas hairbrush and kool-aid? I think that Serrano’s photograph is gorgeous and even as a non-christian I find it to be a powerful and moving statement. It is… Read more »
Well, I used the word obvious only because you said “I never understood the ignorance surrounding that piece…It was so obvious.” My point was that one does not have to be ignorant in order not to find the meaning or beauty of this piece “obvious.” Obviously, I agree that artists must be free to produce works that startle and offend (preferably at their own or their private patrons’ expense, but that is a separate argument). Non-artists must be free to express their reactions to these works. And even the philistine bourgousie has a right to express an opinion that a… Read more »
Then we agree on most if not all of the generalities. To be clear, I am not suggesting a post-modern art critique is not possible for any two objects, or that it follows that all values-challenging art is ‘good’. But in this specific case I stand by my personal interpretation and return to the original point that: sometimes the medium is often part of the message.
I quite enjoyed this NYT review. Lovely values she has wherein her parents having bad taste in art is as traumatic to the young Marina as the discovery that her home had been confiscated from Jews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/books/review-marina-abramovic-memoir-walk-through-walls.html?_r=0
I can see why one would care about Satanism, even if one were an unbeliever. Even if Satan were not real, people who believe that he is might commit horrible crimes in what they see as their service to him.
Jilly I wonder what the side by side tally of killing in the name of christianity versus killings in the name of satan would look like. Something tells me it would be a pretty lopsided list.
I agree with you. I was thinking more about Satan-inspired crime, and why a person could take it seriously without believing in it.
I think it appeals to a cartoonish imagination… devils are fun to think about.
I provided you with the links, including Pedopho’s., I mean Podesta’s email looking forward to “spirit cooking.” I guess you were too lazy to look it up…or too busy poring over National Enquirer headlines about Trump?
Pearls before swine, I’m afraid.
Yes I saw the photo-shopped performance artist with goat head. So silly.
Show me the proof that it’s photoshopped. If it were, I’m sure the horrendously bad Snopes “debunking” article would’ve mentioned it. But no, that’s another one of your lies. And even Snopes says her cookbook “does reference recipes containing bodily fluids such as semen and breast milk.” I guess Podesta is into that kind of thing. And she gets a lot creepier than that if you dig a little deeper.
Spirit Cooking is an art piece. Do you understand what that means? It’s representational and meant to shock and confound. To provoke an emotional response. You may not like it but it’s art. And it worked.
So you lied about the picture being photoshopped. Will you finally admit it?
It does seems to be a real sanctioned photo. One came from that bastion of satanic information Vogue 2014 issue. It is an art piece. This is the last time I will be serious with you. If she were dressed like leprauchan holding a bloody box of Lucky Charms representing the corrupt factory farming practices of General Foods , would you think that she really represented fairies and magic? (and before you get you hopes up, no those creatures aren’t real either mkt.) Spirit Cooking was the title of her bloody graffiti piece as well as a book she did… Read more »
“This is the last time I will be serious with you.”
You’ve never been serious. You lie like a spoiled rotten child whenever you’re cornered (“Photoshopped!” “No one calls themselves an evangelical atheist…you just made that up!”).
And instead of owning up to it. you ramble and use red herrings.
I’m done as well.
Hung up on insignificant details aren’t you? I admit I was wrong that it was not photoshopped. I thought it was. So what? It was a Vogue cover by a performance artist who likes to be provocative. Grow up. Just because you wear devil horns for Halloween doesn’t make you a satanist.
Kind of makes the Dems look like pathetic fake “goths” in a Sat. Night live sketch!????
Oh! and here is them “goths”! I think Donald Trump even made a cameo in this one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RrXLl7MqLk
I really do think it is actually “performance art.” That does not, of course, prevent its being depraved and disgusting. According to the NYT, this woman’s earlier artistic triumphs included audiences watch her lie on ice and cut herself. Or writhe on a stage with live snakes. I don’t think people who want to watch her shows are necessarily or even probably Satanists. But I would say without hesitation that a willingness to watch someone cut herself shows a certain moral depravity.
“Sorry, who is the literal satanist running one of the parties?”
Here is a picture of Hillary Clinton after the TV cameras leave; you tell me.
Rick Astley?
When did Christ church get a disco ball? ????
https://youtu.be/f5YQprhKkUQ
I wouldn’t completely agree about Berglunds popularity in the outlying areas. Benewah County will probably support Paulette. Berglund is strongest in rural Latah County
Who is watching the early balloting?
Pastor Wilson, I just don’t understand your logic on this. You admit that you would rather see Trump win then Clinton, yet you refuse to play any part in it. We know what we are getting with Clinton. With Trump, there is a possibility that we get solid Supreme Court Justices (to name one) which could have the impact of saving the lives of many babies. How can you opt out, especially with the platform you have? I feel like you are hoping that Trump wins (as you have said), but desire for other Christians to do the dirty work.… Read more »
Chad,
Does a vote for a losing candidate = a wasted vote?
Not if it is for one of the two candidates that God has given us.
If your vote for a losing candidate is not defined as a wasted vote because it meets the criteria of “God-given candidacy” then
you’d have to define that.
If it includes any or all candidates that are legal options available for vote-counting, then how is DW’s choice = refusing to play a part in the election?
He refuses to play your part, granted. But he is voting.
I agree he is voting. I do not agree with his reasoning as to why he is voting the way he is. And I wouldn’t define it as “my part.” This isn’t a game that we all make up our own rules for. In the real world, we have 2 options that God has given us.
If in the real world you have ONLY the two options, then that whole write in thing I see on my ballot is from what, the unreal world?
You’ve presented the “real world” options you choose to focus on as your only options.
So try this on:
The infidels tell you (aka the options you say God as given you)
You must kill your wife or your child.
Be true to your logic, Chadd — what do you go with?
I don’t mean this disrespectfully but I think your logic is insane. Thanks for the conversation but we see things much differently.
Oh! >> so YOU choose an option I didn’t present to you!
Going with a Godly option that the infidels didn’t require of you?
That’s exactly what Doug is doing — choosing a third option.
Going with a third option that goes against what he promoted before Trump became the nominee. I’m grateful he acknowledges that it is okay to vote for Trump–and doesn’t say we are doing something the infidels require of us. But as Chadd pointed out, Wilson does have quite the platform of influence. There is something hugely disheartening in his turning against common sense logic he acknowledges and what he has taught. He can do what he wants, of course, but this is not the time for such confusion.
It’s a lot easier to predict what won’t happen than what will happen. I think it’s pretty safe to say that either Clinton or Trump will win the election. Do you disagree?
Yep. But not with me.
Yes, you… disagree? I can’t make head nor tail of this statement
You are right to say that either Trump or Clinton will probably win. Just not with my vote for either.
OK. So if you aren’t planning to vote in a way that will meaningfully affect the outcome, why bother doing it? How is Wilson’s vote for Sasse substantially different from not voting?
Explain please how one can meaningfully affect the outcome by voting for a loser?
That’s what I’m asking you.
If your question made sense then we would have to tell all losers that their votes were wasted and carried no meaning. ONLy votes for the winner carry meaning and have any value according to your principal therefore any vote for Trump is meaningless if Trump loses
Sounds about right to me. Is there another interpretation you’d like to offer? (I don’t know if “wasted” is the right word, in any case. “Unsuccessful”, perhaps.)
All votes carry meaning.
For me, my vote says who among available candidates I think is acceptable and best.
Maybe for you it’s who is least evil.
This is about like those art critics who say that the value of art is “what it says to you personally”.
Actually the logic is that the value of art (the vote) is what the author (the voter) says it means to him personally.
Your position seems to be that the value lies in what you, the critic, want it to mean.
But you’ve said votes for winners are the only meaningful votes?
So if your last vote had any meaning, it had to have been for Obama, right?
I don’t look for “meaning” in votes, just effects.
We’re talking about Wilson’s discrepancies and definitions. That have been agreed upon here in the past.
“acceptable and best” is precious little different than “who is least evil”–you’ve made a judgment call on “good better best” as well.
Hillary will win. Trump will lose BIGLY. In fact HRC’s chances have risen 5.5 percentage points on the aggregate 538 poll in the past 6 six hours.
Prepare to be lead by a woman ashv as much as it is going to kill you as a reformed christian.
go to church LOL
I’m there ashv. Hillary’s going to take you there too tomorrow.
Define “BIGLY.” I’m not seeing it.
Duplicate.
He refuses to play what HE HIMSELF has promoted and defined in the past. He has said abortion is anyone’s fault who voted for Obama twice–the most pro-abortion president yet…and…not voting against Hillary leaves us innocent? He has said abortion is the queen of all issues. The one to protect and advance. But somewhere in not getting a promise for Daleiden’s medal of honor he got caught up in something other than the strategy to which he has devoted much time — beseeching our energy for. I’m quite sure Daleiden (who supports Trump) would be more pleased with us not… Read more »
Please provide a solid case that Trump will influence the ending of murdering babies.
I stayed up half the night with quotes and links from those more informed and involved presenting their case to bolster my opinion–trying to make up the lack of such these past “tawdry clownish” months. They are sprinkled throughout this thread. (The ending of it? Even if steps are made towards it–and we can influence HIM for his commitments–and that trickle down effect helps those on the federal/state levels. Even Wilson has said the fight will be different type of fight with Trump–the fight of holding him accountable rather than changing a heart of stone, so to speak. I’d think… Read more »
Yeah, people promise things, that isn’t a solid case, especially when the man can’t articulate a meaningful argument. He is a demagogue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/
That’s part of politics. If that were the premise for voting or not (promises, personality, crystal ball opinions), then we should never vote. And there’s more to the effort than just the president, it’s the whole chess board you look at (per Wilson’s analogy).
Which is why you look at the enemies concerns and cases as well, and those more intricately involved in discussions with Trump.
Do you have a biblical case for this idea?
“that’s unacceptable” and the idea that with pro-life justices it is logical that Roe v. Wade could be readdressed/the issue put back in the states hands…the argument isn’t too difficult. but if so, a demogogue who is seeking to please the right people will work good ‘nuf. “can’t always get what you want…get what you need…” :) “fools are destroyed by their lack of common sense”…multitude of counselors there is safety…wise as serpents, harmless as doves… By forbearance a ruler may be persuaded…know your enemy and their devices… not enough time to cover the biblical principles. i always detest it… Read more »
Yeah, i’m a troll. Never can get a biblical case out of ones that are thinking like you.
Do you have a biblical case for this idea?
Pointless. I’m done. Good day.
Weird.
You take leftist fundraising/get out the vote rhetoric as a credible description of what an opposing candidate can actually be relied on to do? You must be new here (here being defined as American political discourse.) Exaggerated claims based on something other than a strict concern for truth, about the dangers posed by an opponent is stock in trade for campaign materials for both sides. Regardless of what credible sources you might be able to come up with for Trump’s reliability on pro-life issues, you absolutely can’t taken opposition campaign rhetoric as a credible assessment of a candidate’s reliability on… Read more »
Dunsworth, Given our past less than fruitful (to put it mildly) interaction, Is it really worth our time? You are one of three reasons why I bowed out of here a long time ago. We are on opposite sides of Niagara Falls in many respects. Thanks for the compliment…just so stupid of me, yes, thanks, I would have never considered this, of course. For others (regarding this): Good grief. It is at least something to consider. You know your enemies sometimes by their friends. I’ve already said in politics you can’t fully rely on anything, and if you expect to… Read more »
And as you said, especially if you are in agreement that one would be easier to work/with, “fight”, etc. for the direction we want to go. If one believes all that Wilson admits, then yes, it seems wasted…and strange.
He has said abortion is his stickler issue. Enough to vote McCain because of Palin, and enough to consider voting for Obama if Obama had heart problems and his VP were a strong pro-lifer. Well…then look at our candidates’ ages and consider Pence vs. Kaine… Why then and not now.
DW’s logic here requires you to fill in some assumptions.
(1) Given the likelihood of one-of-two candidates winning the office, because of the likelihood of less-than-optimum voting behavior … I’d rather be inflicted with T that C.
(2) I should behave the best I can in my vote
(3) The best behavior in my voting should be for the candidate who is (a) legally qualified and willing to accept my vote & the office (b) meets my acceptability standards & (c) is the best option within (a) & (b)
Are you saying you think it’s wrong to be pragmatic in politics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4
Assange’s interview is heartwrenching. What do we say to the world about 40,000 dead Libyans and the tumult in Europe and the middle east that our representatives have caused? America is the bad guy that wants to extradite Assange. Interesting that Assange says the only group behind Trump is Evangelicals.
Very good article by Pat Caddell:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/07/patrick-caddell-real-election-surprise-uprising-american-people.html
It’s always right to be pragmatic — in the right context.
A context of presuming (aka tempting God as they used to call it) makes pragmatism at best sorely mistaken.
Now if He told you authoritatively somehow, somewhere, that He requires you to vote for a lesser of two evils, both of whom you find unacceptable as choices — then you should go with what He told you to do and plead confusion.
But if you find a third option acceptable and best, then you should — pragmatically — go with that.
I’m not sure pragmatic is the word we are looking for, but I don’t know the word. It isn’t pragmatic to have a principle–as in, if we believe we are to vote for the most good (lesser evil), then we stand by it–that isn’t pragmatism. We use rational processes to bring that principle to a conclusion/choice. What is pragmatic is in some cases to say it’s okay to determine the best good (as Wilson said on the down ballot to choose “opportunities”) and then to turn around and say we don’t need to/shouldn’t do that on the presidential level. Eyes… Read more »
I copied this from Robert A. J. Gagnon’s Facebook page (what do folks here think about his argument?): I have never understood the “I could never vote for the lesser of two evils” argument. Taken absolutely, it produces absurd and even immoral results. In the Book of Isaiah we hear words commending the Persian ruler Cyrus, even referring to him as God’s “anointed,” because God uses this pagan to allow Babylonian Jews to emigrate back to Israel. The Scripture is not commending Cyrus as a wonderful moral man, much less as a devotee of Yahweh. He can simply be used… Read more »
Good stuff. Was thinking on similarly this afternoon. When these “voting for the lesser evil is sin” people chide us for that…how are they not acting the same? i.e. When people say they won’t vote for Trump because of “clown”, but then say they absolutely can’t vote for Hillary–and then go and vote third party. They have by their very actions made a judgment call on evil. Their only option, to be consistent, is to not vote.
Thanks for sharing.
Please also consider Constitution Party Darrell Castle for President! On ballot in many states, and write-in on others. Platform as follows:
– Limit power of federal govt by drastically changing tax code.
-End American intervention abroad and foreign intervention at home.
-End the Federal Reserve system.
-Secure border but limit domestic surveillance and federal power within the states.
Oh and he appears to be a God fearing Christian of the Reformed tradition.
https://youtu.be/t_ZEPv4zBus
He also has no chance of winning.
True, and partly because he is on ballot in many states but not every state. Even where he is on the ballot I’m aware of no indication he will have any impact in those states. Be nice to see if he did. I share your view on the pointlessness of write-ins.
Nice picture to keep in mind.
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/video/thumbs/trumping-hillary-the-catholic-position.jpg
“Since
the videos were released, 26 states, more than half the country, have
moved to strip Planned Parenthood of its taxpayer subsidies and reassign
that money to full-spectrum, mainstream community health centers,” stated Daleiden.
“And for the first time in history, Congress was able to put a bill
on the president’s desk to completely end Planned Parenthood’s
half-a-billion dollars in tax-payer support. The only thing we now need
to zero out 50 percent of Planned Parenthood’s income is the signature
of a president who will listen to us.”
http://www.christianpost.com/news/planned-parenthood-abortion-empire-falling-apart-david-daleiden-vvs-169467/
Pence:
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+defund+planned+parenthood&qft=+filterui%3avideoage-lt43200&view=detail&mid=D00FD96540E80FD9286DD00FD96540E80FD9286D&FORM=VRDGAR
“Also since that attack we replaced an ineffectual pro-life president with the most pro-abort president we have ever had. Does this look like a spirit of repentance to you? Does this look like the stirrings of reformation?” https://dougwils.com/books/in-the-thousands.html “Sing a Little Louder” or #NeverTrump a little louder… http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sing+a+little+louder&&view=detail&mid=741D31CB288AF50B1CC3741D31CB288AF50B1CC3&FORM=VRDGAR “Watch the fourth video, just released today, and listen for that appalling comment at the end — “And another boy!” In short, if you don’t know how to weigh with equal weights and measures, then you shouldn’t be weighing anything at all. Think about this. Even after the revelations contained in these… Read more »
“Scary rhetoric”
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=trump+clinton+abortion&&view=detail&mid=FD54286B9BBBF887B0F5FD54286B9BBBF887B0F5&FORM=VRDGAR
Supreme Court: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-releases-2nd-list-of-potential-supreme-court-judges-i-will-nominate-someone-like-scalia/
Judicial Appointments: http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2016/10/28/at-least-113-judicial-appointments-at-stake
I am praying for God’s mercy. There can be no doubt that DJT presents us with an opportunity for reprieve. What is sad and humbling is the fact that if HRC wins she will have zilch credibility with which to govern. The Federal government of the United States itself is in the throes of death. Look at what has been laid bare in this election (not that any astute observer did not know these things, but): * the MSM is a farce and they know it. From the NYT openly touting its bias against one candidate and for another to… Read more »
This is a nice diversion from election obsession. On my disqus page I got a notification that I am being followed by a lady who is looking for love. I fear that she is looking in vain. This is the only forum on which I comment. Are these notifications randomly generated?
It could be a spam bot or a Russian.
Russia. Always.
Putin himself…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3a3xfESd5s
4 out of 5 dentists surveyed said it was the Russians!????
I got that too. It lead me to reflect on the relative profitability of the seven deadly sins. It doesn’t look like wrath pays.
Some feminist organizations are calling on women HRC supporters to wear white pantsuits to the polls tomorrow. This is going too far. Everyone knows you can’t wear white after Labor Day.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! One in our family imitated Palin for the fun of it when they voted at that time–got a lot of doubletakes. They thought that yes, if they were for Hillary they’d wear a pantsuit. Fun. Wore my bright, bright red but didn’t have time to buy a clown nose or big wig :) I absolutely hated our voting method this time. A ballot with sections all running together–horribly formatted–so much that if you didn’t look extra carefully you’d miss a section to vote for. Then the ovals to fill in with pen were incredibly tiny…then they scanned the ballot… Read more »
I’m curious, did you get as much negative feedback on your 2012 refusal to vote for Romney?
Despite what Obama and several commenters here said, it looks voting isn’t so perfect and fraud-free after all: http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/11/08/some-problems-reported-as-voters-head-to-polls/ “Every time I would push a candidate for the Republican party, it would come up for the Democratic candidate,” said voter David Drane. Election judges in Clinton Township, Butler County confirmed there were issues with two of their eight automated voting machines. Most of the issues came when people tried to vote straight party ticket. However, others said they specifically wanted to vote for Republican Donald Trump only to see their vote switched before their eyes to Democrat Hillary Clinton. “I… Read more »
Goodbye Hellry!
Hillary lost!!!! YESS!!
I would rather be ruled by the Man Behind the Curtain that the Wicked Witch of the West.