Good News from Iraq

This will probably get lost in the election news, but there is great progress to report from Iraq:

October is on track to be the first month in which no U.S. troops have died in combat in Baghdad...

The news comes in a week in which the troops have already made headlines. Their latest milestone? Two days ago, the U.S. military had handed over control of yet another province to the people of Iraq. This is the 13th of the country's 18 provinces to be placed back in Iraqi control, a sign of the tremendous dedication of the men and women of our military.

Remember, Obama opposed the surge and even said that he still wouldn't have supported it, even knowing in hindsight that it worked. McCain was an early supporter of the surge and helped push Bush into doing it. I think what it says about their foreign policy judgment is pretty clear.

Joe Biden: "Mark My Words" . . . if Obama wins

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

Obama to Joe the Plumber: "spread the wealth around"

Charles Krauthammer: The case for McCain

Here’s a great piece by Charles Krauthammer explaining why John McCain is the wise choice to lead our country through dangerous times.

Why I'm Voting Yes on Proposition 8

I realize that the post on Prop 8 might leave some of you wondering: so, Rich, why are you for Prop 8?

(For all you non-Californians, earlier this year the Sup. Court of CA overturned an earlier vote of the people to define marriage between a man and a woman. Prop 8 seeks to overturn the court's ruling and set the traditional definition in law.)

Briefly:

The primary reason is that modern Western culture is the first tore-define marriage. Of course, this doesn't mean we stay with the 'status quo,' but it does tell us who has to do the arguing. Since its been defined as between a man and a woman since pretty much the beginning (even the ancient Romans, though they were tolerant of the practice of homosexuality, viewed marriage as between a man and a woman), the burden of proof lies with the ones who want to change the definition. The arguments advanced for homosexual marriage aren't even close to convincing.

Here's one of the principal reasons I hear being used: marriage is about love, so you should be able to marry anyone you love. We shouldn't be denied the freedom to love who we want.

Aside from the obvious rejoinder that no one is preventing anyone from loving (sexual love included) anyone else (in other words, you can already love who you want w.o restriction), if I love my sister like that, should I be able to marry her? What about a 15 year old? If not, why not?

If two men should be able to get married, why not three? What's so scary about that number?

The bottom line with the questions is that few want to go that far, yet any reasons used to 'deny rights (this phrase is a bit of a misnomer)'to those partnerships turns out to be discriminatory according to the definition of those who use the 'love' argument.

Love is a great thing, but its neither necessary nor sufficient grounds for a definition of marriage.

Secondly, the 'no' campaign puts this in terms of rights. The 'yes' campaign is supposedly 'denying rights' to homosexuals. This argument is specious. For the details, go here.

Really, this debate is about two things: the definition of marriage,and approval. Making gay marriage legal would be tantamount to saying that the term 'marriage' is a social construction and can be changed if society says so. In addition to this opening a pandora's box of slippery slopes (polygamy, anyone?), I see no reason to agree to this view.

Even though the outer rim of marriage has changed through history(interracial marriage, etc) doesn't mean the core has changed: marriage has always been between a man and woman, and it has always been about raising children. The article I linked to above gets more into this.

Proponents of gay marriage are seeking approval of their relationships,and making gay marriage legal will essentially grant that approval. The government (and, by extension, taxpayers) would be giving a tacit nod towards those relationships. I see no reason whatsoever to think that such approval is a right. A desire, maybe. Right? No.

Saying something is a 'right' means that the person/group possessing the right has a just claim to something. Does it make sense to say that homosexuals have a just claim to society's approval of their relationships?

Even if you think homosexuality is ok, this is a bit of a stretch.

The Koukl article in the link fills in the needed philosophical details...go read it.

California Teachers Say "no" on 8?

Evidently, since I'm a teacher, this ad says I'm against Proposition 8:



Well, no one consulted me! No one consulted countless other CA teachers too.

Here is a letter to the editor that I wrote in to the LA Times and OC Register on the "no on Proposition 8" campaign:

As a high school teacher, I don't appreciate that the "No on 8" campaign uses my name to advance their cause. In radio and television ads, they state, "teachers say 'no' on proposition 8." Who determined that this supposedly monolithic group is against proposition 8? A great many teachers are for it. CTA and the "no" campaign didn't consult me before lending my name to their cause!

I am also incensed that CTA is using my money to support highly controversial political campaigns. Rather than focusing on the many school funding issues on the ballot, they have contributed over 1 million dollars to the "no on 8" campaign. Can't my hard earned money be used more wisely?

In addition to all this, CTA and "no on 8" are not being wholly honest. Certain groups claim that teaching about gay marriage won't be mandated in CA public schools. When gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, these same groups fought to make it mandated there. For instance, in an amicus curiae brief in Parker v. Hurley, The Anti-Defamation League stated: "Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years. The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction." And later: "In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.”

Both I and many other public school teachers don't appreciate our money and name being used in this way. We will vote yes on Proposition 8.

**I'll tackle this ad in greater depth in the next few days.

Your Guitar Teacher on Economics

The following illustration is a conversation Billy Dyer (hughewitt.com) had with his daughter, Molly. As a teacher, I greatly appreciate the illustration:

"Grades come out tomorrow," said my daughter Molly, an eighth grader, when I picked her up at school this afternoon.

"Great," I answered, "How d'ya think you're gonna do?"

"Pretty well," Molly said confidently.

"What will probably be your best grade?" I asked.

"Guitar," she said, "That will probably be a 97 or a 98."

"Cool," I said. "You really have been successful. But I think you should tell your Guitar teacher that you want to give six or seven of those points to some of your classmates who haven't practiced so hard or don't have the talent you have."

She looked up at me, startled. "What?"

"That class is easy for you, and you have lots more points than you need for an A. They need those points more than you do," I explained.

"Then they should have worked harder!" she protested. "Yeah, I'm sort of talented, but I worked hard to get those grades! I earned them!"

"So you're telling me that you think it's fair for you to get to keep all of those good grades, both the part that comes from your having worked harder than your classmates, and the part that comes from the musical talent you inherited from me and your mom. Is that what you're saying?"

"Well, yeah!"

"Show me your lunchbox," I said. She looked at me strangely again, but found it on the floorboard and held it up.

I pointed at the "Barack Obama" sticker on its side, which she got from my ex. "That guy," I said, "wants to use the tax laws to take away more of the money that wealthy people have, whether they got it by working harder or because their parents worked harder to be able to give it to them. He says other people need that money more. He thinks we need to spread the wealth around.

"What I was saying when you first got in the car," I continued, "is just that we should spread your grade wealth around. You disagreed. Good for you. I don't really think your Guitar teacher should do that anyway. But let me ask you another question."

"Okay," she said, listening thoughtfully.

"Let's say even though you object, your Guitar teacher decides to spread your grades around to the other students in your class. Do you think you'll work as hard to get top grades during the next nine weeks?"

"No way!" she said.

I just pointed at the sticker on her lunchbox again. We spent the rest of the short drive to her mom's house in contemplative silence.

Two links to two totally tubular guys

Read here and here for two professors analysis on Obama's abortion stance.

The first one is by Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, and the second is by Doug Geivett, philosophy professor at Biola University.

Both make some very, very salient points that most in the mainstream don't acknowledge (heck, most in the public don't acknowledge them either, which makes the comments all the more needed.).

I've interacted with both (I've read George's books and taken some classes by Geivett). Both are first class intellects.

The Obama File

Folks, read this.

Well linked, well reasoned, lots of information (much of it from Obama's own mouth).

I had absolutely no idea. Up until a few days ago, I was mainly focusing on his views on abortion. I didn't have many details about the other issues. Then I ran into the "Obama file."

HT: Michelle Malkin

On Obama--Ayers Trail

Read here and here for some telling information on William Ayers and Obama's connections with him.

Even if Obama wasn't giving half-baked explanations (i.e, "I was eight years old when Ayers committed crimes," and "he's just a guy from the neighborhood"), could you be confident of a guy with those types of associations?

I'm fairly confident that if McCain had even a cursory association with someone who, say, years ago set a stink bomb in the LA convention center...well, lets just say that we'd be all over him like a rat on a cheeto.

Do we really know the real Barack Obama?

Over the past two years, we have witnessed the glowing coverage of Obama by the Main Stream Media (MSM). But at what cost? Have we really been told all that we need to know about this man?

As these video and audio clips reveal, the answer is clearly no.

For Such A Time As This

If you want to help influence this election, use your time wisely. We only have a week and a half to do all we can to get McCain elected. Ask yourself how you are in the position to affect as many people as possible before the election.

One Recommendation: Wise Personal Engagement – person to person:

• Ask people (not in CA or NY) if they have made up their minds yet about what presidential candidate they are voting for.
• If they say yes, McCain, move on. You don't want to waste your time in a love-fest about how bad Obama is.
• If they say yes, Obama, move on. Don't try to change their minds. Most people do not want someone to change their minds once it is made up. It's called pride. Deal with it.
• If they say no, then ask what is their top consideration when voting for president.
• Once they tell you, then offer the best reason or reasons why McCain would do a better job in that area than Obama.
  

That is unless they offer any of the following as their top consideration for president:

• one who will take money from those who work hard and pay taxes to those who don't work and don't pay taxes (i.e. "spread the wealth around").
• one who will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will preserve the right of women to kill their unborn children.
• one who believes that world dictators don't like us because they just don't understand us.
• one who is not one of those evil Republicans.
• one who is black.
  

In any of these instances, than Obama is their man; just move on.*

*This segment of this post was brought to by moveon.org . . . not. ; - )

Another Recommendation: Wise Personal Engagement – via the internet:

• forward to everyone you know good online media clips that make a good argument.
  
• most who have yet to make up their minds are not the most read-up individuals, so most of them will not be very interested in reading stuff about who to vote for, but they would be willing to watch something. (Homer: “Ahhh, pretty lights moving around and making funny sounds.”) This is pathetic I know, but the sad reality is that these still-undecided voters will be deciding the outcome of this election.*
  
• For those who don’t have internet access, bring over your laptop or put them in front of your computer and show them something online.
  
  *If you prefer watching over reading, it’s obvious you are not one of those I am talking about above. Afterall, you are reading right now. ; - )
  
  

Another Recommendation: Wise Personal Engagement – with God:

• not only should you do all that you can as if everything depended on you, but you should pray as if everything depended on God.*
  
  * The truth is, everything is dependent on God, but apart from direct divine intervention, He uses His people in the process of redemption. (e.g. the Book of Ruth).

The Mortgage Crisis’ “Smoking Gun” Video

The following video clip is all the proof any reasonable person needs in order to know who is mainly to blame for the recent mortgage crisis and bailout.





* * Even Alec Baldwin admitted this fact. watch * *

Introducing…STTIL Outreaches!

Here’s a video showing what some of us in our church are doing related to evangelism. The key to our success and the centerpiece of this initiative in biblical evangelism is built around a mutual encouraging community. We also designed it so it can be easily duplicated in other churches. So if you feel so inclined, go for it!

Voter Guide for Ohio Voters

Here's a great resource to help you cast an informed vote this election.

Dear Abby Gone Wild

In recent years, the column known as “Dear Abby” for which generations have trusted in for advice about life, has established a less-than-desirable track record for those who believe in a traditional, Christian worldview. These findings are the result of a recent study by the Culture and Media Institute.

Voter Fraud: Impinging on Your Rights

I am reading a LOT these days about voter fraud in the upcoming presidential election. And in most cases, the liberal organization ACORN seems to be at the center. Hot Air has a great roundup, with lots of links:

Investors Business Daily asks what Barack Obama knows about the epidemic of voter fraud in ACORN, and it’s not an unfair question. Not only has Obama publicly endorsed ACORN, he has paid them at least $800,000 for their services, an amount that he didn’t immediately disclose until pressed. ACORN has responded in kind, with their voter-registration efforts that have resulted in criminal investigations in more than a dozen states.

(You did catch the Obama ties in that paragraph, right? Lots more at the link.)

In Nevada, ACORN workers submitted false registrations in the name of the entire Dallas Cowboys starting lineup--at least those are easy to catch! Here's more info on problems in Nevada:

[ACORN's] office was raided Tuesday morning by agents of the Nevada Secretary of State and Attorney General who alleged in an application for a search warrant that ACORN had hired 59 felons through a work release program as canvassers and submitted nearly 300 apparently fraudulent voter registration cards as part of the drive.

The submitted voter cards included addresses and names that do not exist in Nevada, duplicate registrations, names culled from telephone books and names of Dallas Cowboys players, an investigator for the Secretary of State alleged in his affidavit for a search warrant.

It's hard to tell whether anyone is voting under false pretenses, since many states don't require ID at the polls. It's hard to prove after the fact. But I did run across an article about recent elections in Texas, where dead people apparently voted.

Why does it matter? Granted, every bogus registration doesn't translate into a bogus vote. But thousands of bad forms to comb through do tax local elections boards and reduce the manpower available to find other serious problems. And some bogus votes probably do get cast. In a post on the fact that Indianapolis has apparently registered 105% of its adult residents, Lawhawk summarizes (via Instapundit, who has more links):

The New York Times and Washington Post forgets that every bogus vote cast or indicated means that your legitimate vote gets offset by someone who is voting illegally. Your right to vote is harmed by these illegal and bogus votes. That's the crime committed here...

This is a serious issue of trust in our election system. Granted, in most cases, the presidential vote in a given state isn't close enough to be swayed by a few thousand illegal votes. But if I recall correctly, Florida in 2000 had a margin of something like 500 or 600 votes, and that state decided the election. Plus, the state and local races often have much closer margins, and those are important too.

In the Beginning Was the Word

This is really cool:

The pope announced last week that he would begin a televised reading of all 73 books of the bible beginning yesterday. Spare me notes arguing about the number of books in the bible - I’m not going to get mired down in apologetics - and just stick with me.

So, think about it - right now GOING OUT OVER THE AIR - from Rome, is The Word. In its entirety, whole and complete, without any books tossed aside or neglected....

This is a battle. There are things seen and unseen. Right now we see a battle being played out, politically, economically and socially.

But there is another battle being played out as well - all around us, borne on the invisible air. I think Benedict is brilliant in doing this. The Word being breathed into the air, unabridged, and the Holy Spirit rides on the breath. This is very cool.

I know the Protestants reading this blog disagree with the Pope and the Anchoress about the number of books in the canon, but I think we can agree on the main point: God's Word has power:

Pope Benedict XVI today said that the global credit crisis shows that the world’s financial systems are “built on sand” and that only the works (sic) of God have “solid reality”.

… ”He who builds only on visible and tangible things like success, career and money builds the house of his life on sand”. He added: ”We are now seeing, in the collapse of major banks, that money vanishes, it is nothing. All these things that appear to be real are in fact secondary. Only God’s words are a solid reality”.

If you follow the link, you'll see that the Anchoress also has some good thoughts on what to pray for in these crazy days with the financial system in a mess and the election coming up. Read the whole thing!

Would you accept 4 cents on the dollar?

If so, you might think it makes sense to fight global warming instead of adapting to it. The cost-benefit ratio of policies to fight global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions is, indeed, roughly 25 to 1. Bjørn Lomborg emphasized this in a September 30 article in Times Online (the online version of the Times of London).

Lomborg and other economists estimate that every dollar spent to reduce global warming by adopting renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels would yield about 4 cents of benefits. "To make a simple comparison," Lomborg writes, "the UN estimates that for about £40 billion ($70 billion) annually, we could solve all major basic problems in the world - we could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic education and healthcare to every person in the world. But instead we are spending a fortune achieving almost nothing."

For additional information on prioritizing spending to achieve the greatest good, see the Copenhagen Consensus Center’s 2008 report (http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/).

______

This content was produced by The WeGetIt.org campaign team.

Youtube continues censorship

Youtube continues to remove content that jeopardizes the Obama campaign. The latest involves footage that describes the hypocrisy of Obama’s words at the recent Saddleback Civil forum where he criticized our nation's leaders for not following Jesus’ imperative to consider “the least of these” (Matt. 25:40). He boldly declares this all the while neglecting the needs of his very own half-brother who lives in poverty in the slums of Kenya.

Related articles:

Obama’s half brother found link

Townhall.com article link

Reagan: Still the Great Communicator

Last week I happened to read some excerpts from a speech Ronald Reagan gave in 1964. It's a classic, called "A Time for Choosing" or sometimes "A Rendezvous with Destiny." He made the speech while on the campaign trail for Barry Goldwater (he actually gave it a more than once, in slightly different versions). I was amazed at how many of the things he said still ring true in this election. Here's a few choice quotes:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Small-government conservative vs. big-government liberal, right there. Personally I think the sad part is how few conservatives are still for small government.

Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Seems to me those thoughts still apply to any number of liberal programs, from health care to welfare to the mortgage issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Never forget that those who want to expand the reach of the government are ultimately expanding their control over your life. Reagan says in the speech that the government doesn't have to actually take your property to be socialist; it just has to be able to control your property.

He has some thoughts on foreign policy too. Remember, this was at the very beginning of the Vietnam War and the height of the Cold War.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum.

Substitute Islamic fundamentalism for the Iron Curtain and communism, and you could apply this almost word-for-word today. Did you catch this line: "And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers." Isn't that essentially what a lot of Democrats say about Islam? It's all our fault and if we get our soldiers out of the Middle East they won't be mad at us any more? And that Alexander Hamilton quote is money; it's why we can't leave Iraq without a stable government and military.

In my opinion, these are the important principles that are hopefully still the foundation of the conservative movement today. These are things you should think about in this election, in our own "time for choosing." It's important to think about why we believe in small government, strong defense, and all those other good conservative causes. If you want to read the whole speech you can find it here. (And hats off to Townhall Magazine, which is where I read it in the first place and which regularly reprints "Conservative Classics.")

The Right Gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn't Get it

By Rich Bordner

(The title of this post borrows a book title from left-leaning author Jim Wallis. I don't buy the guy's views really, but the title fits this blog, so I'm stealing it.)

Ever since McCain picked Palin as his running mate, I've been getting more into politics. It is interesting stuff.

One thing I've noticed is that, though the left is crossing the ethical line in campaigning more egregious ways, the right is as well.

Those familiar with my views know that I'm a conservative. Not only are my views conservative, aligning much more with Republicans than Democrats, but I also think that McCain will make a much, much better president than Obama. However, I am disappointed not just with some of the things the McCain campaign has done and said, but I am disappointed at the conservative commentators as well.

Do you ever get the feeling that both sides are playing this shell game, trying to make their base super-confident while making the other side uncertain? I can understand the strategy, on the one hand, but on the other hand, this can backfire; when folks see the shell game for what it is, the gig's up and it hurts you more than helps.

Then again, most of the time the public falls for pretty silly stuff, so whatever.

Some of the things the Obama campaign and democratic commentators have done is pretty below-the-belt. It seems like they are stopping at nothing to smear Palin, make McCain sound panicky, and make Palin sound like a fundie nutjob without a clue. One skimming of the Daily Kos, or the Atlantic, or one look at the full text of Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin (the edits are astounding) will show that in spades. Palin's personal email has been hacked. The AP has info on who did it but is refusing to cooperate with the feds. In fact, they blame Palin for the crime! Obama's dodges of Gianna Jessen's ads (saying she is lying) are despicable.

But the right doesn't have completely clean hands either. McCain waaaay overplayed the "lipstick on a pig" line. It wasn't a malicious attack. At worst for Obama, it just revealed inexperience; he should have known how his audience would interpret it, but I don't think he was intentionally targeting Palin. Even if he was, McCain/Palin came off as a bit whiny by making such a big issue about it, rather than just plain ignoring it.

The conservative commentators are even worse. Some make a big to do about Palin smears, but then they call names and make insinuations as well. For example, I'm on Michelle Malkin's blog every day. She has some good stuff. But boy can she be downright nasty! Go to her blog and scroll down the side. Notice how just about every picture she has of Obama and/or his wife depicts them in the most ugly fashion? Just about every picture of Michelle Obama is of her snarling her face. That, or she looks like trailer trash. The pics of Obama are no better. Malkin knows what she is doing. It might be an effective tactic, but its manipulative.

Others call Obama names like Obumble or Dalibama.

One Conservative Canadian blogger wrote a great post about the tactics of the far left...or at least it was a great post, until he said the following about Arianna Huffington and her appearance (opposite Chuck Norris) on Larry King Live:

"..she is just jealous of a woman who worked to get where she is instead of making the journey on her knees and back (you heard me right, she married rich). I just wish Chuck Norris, who was also on Larry King, would have nailed her with his signature roundhouse kick (a dream yes, but one I wish would have come true)."

So the far left's attacks against Palin are out of bounds, but an assertion that Huffington used sexual favors to climb the ladder of success is a-ok?

Huffington might be pretty astonishing in the drivel she writes, but what the heck is wrong with Canadian Conservative?!

At the end of the day, my vote is still solidly conservative. No matter how bad the cacophony gets, that won't outweigh the bad effects an Obama presidency will have on this country.

But I want to say to both sides: what good does it do you if you "gain the whole world, yet forfeit your soul? (Matthew 16:26)"

Caught up in Election Mania

I'm starting to feel a little overwhelmed by all the election news, the economy, the war. Everything is the most, the biggest, the worst, the absolute most important thing. So I needed this reminder, from the Anchoress:

I’m praying and fasting “that wisdom and light be brought to guide our nation in this election period, and that Thy will be done…” whatever that ends up being. I was a little appalled to get one missive from a lady who said she was Christian but was clearly in high-hand-wringing mode. Her worry: what if I encourage others to pray and fast “but we lose! If we lose it will not be good witness to the power of God! It will say God is defeated!”

My prayer is not for victory. It is for the very best outcome for the country, and for God’s will to be done. Our ways are not God’s way, nor our minds God’s mind...

So, let us not worry. Let us not wring our hands. For the Christian, anyway, I believe we are in a moment where the rubber meets the road. How do you respond to that? With trust that no matter what things seem like, that “all things work for good and to the Glory of God” or with wringing hands, depression and doubt?

If you are doubting…if you are thinking that only electoral victory - as defined by the world - will be a validation of either the existence of God, or His Intent, then you need to hunker down into scripture and get out of your own head. Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God, or do you not? If you do, do you really think that this election is all there is, and that a loss here is somehow static, and works to nothing in God’s purpose?

To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under the heaven.

You either believe that, or you don’t.

“Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

You either believe it, or you don’t.

But if you’re calling yourself a Christian, and you’re not believing it, then question what you say you believe.

Yes, I am praying; yes I am fasting. I am not doing these things for a “victory.” I’m doing it because I am in training. I’m taking the long-view, and understanding that nothing ends or begins on November 5 that has not already ended and begun...

I'm certainly not going to stop thinking about the issues and working to share important news and trying to persuade others of the Truth. But I think I need to take a breath, and be calm, and stop worrying, and trust. If you're feeling the same way, read the whole thing.