Example of a friendly conversation about politics

I thought I’d share a conversation I had recently with an old friend on facebook. I’ll call him “John”.

Me:

You said: "Republican, Democrat ... you can be a chimp for all I care .. just be able to LEAD a country!"

It sounds like you voted for McCain. Because we all know (at least those who voted for McCain) that Obama doesn't have the experience to lead. ...which we are now finding out the hard way. (hope this doesn't offend you. : )

John:

I did vote for McCain, and no you didn’t offend me. Exactly ... Obama doesn’t have a clue. and I meant what I said. I don’t care about political parties. I think we should do away with them all together. We need to ONE in order to move forward and make progress. This bickering back and forth has gotten us nowhere. Meanwhile, we are just treading water as more and more illegal immigrants and terrorists enter our country, and we continue to spend over 300 BILLION $ a year to support them! WTF is up with that?!!! We are a mess and I’m really not that political in nature, until just recently when I starting being effected directly. It’s sad to see how corrupt and what a mess our political system is.

Me:

I’m glad, John, that you can discern Obama’s inability to lead our country correctly. I would encourage you, though, to reevaluate your advocacy of doing away with political parties. Politics with no partisanship means we are left with two (if I’m not mistaken) options: either we have no politics at all – which is called anarchy; or we have a one party system – which is called communism. (And I doubt that you are an anarchist or a communist.) Despite what we hear in the mainstream media (MSM), partisanship is actually a good thing. For instance, it prevents a radical president from enacting radical laws by having the opposition party (and others who are not radical) in the legislature stop him by filibustering or other obstructionist means. The MSM is trying to help him anyway. That’s why you hear of the press complaining of “gridlock” right now. Their guy is in the White House, and they don’t want less liberal and more conservative legislators stopping his agenda. So they simply blame the Republicans for the problem. What’s new? You would never hear of “gridlock” when Congress is more liberal and the White House is more conservative. The interesting thing is, it’s not actually the Republicans that represent the main opposition to Obama – its Democrats! – non-leftists, non-radical “blue dog” Democrats, to be exact. We see this, for instance, with the Stupak amendment in the House on health care. The American people, both Democrats and Republicans, don’t want the American taxpayer funding abortions. The Republicans are too small of a minority to prevent an Obama health care system that includes taxpayer-funding of abortions. It’s actually Obama’s less liberal, more conservative *fellow-Democrats* that are the ones who are successfully slowing down the Obama Express. But you’re not going to hear about that much in the MSM (minus maybe FOX).

I agree our political system is not perfect, but history shows that our partisan politics form of government has been the most workable system in this current broken age east of Eden. While speaking on the subject of democracies (as opposed to say communism), Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

While our political system is not perfect, I believe the bigger problem is that our societal systems are systematically being subverted, and in many cases, *have been* subverted, by historically non-American and untenable worldviews: our economic system of capitalism is being replaced with socialism; our legal system of constitutional law is being replaced with activist adjudication; our country’s moral compass (philosophy/ethics) of moral objectivism, *has* been replaced with moral relativism; our political system of a representative republic/democracy may eventually be replaced by a ONE-party system of communism.

I’m glad, John, you’ve gotten more politically active and informed. I would just encourage you to continue on that trek armed with good information and analysis. (BTW, John, have you ever heard of townhall.com? It's a good place to go to get informed.) Indeed, as you said, politics does matter, because it always affects us – whether directly or indirectly, whether we are aware of it or not.

This year is critical for the American people to really learn what’s up, and then vote correctly. As Biden admitted recently, this year’s congregational elections will be the last chance the American people have to stop the Obama Express from becoming a full and irreversible reality.

"When the people fear government, that's tyranny; when the government fears the people, that's liberty." – Thomas Jefferson

Is Being Gay A Civil Right?

Let’s draw the distinction between homosexuality and the black cause. Homosexuality is a behavior (like pedophilia), whereas being black, is *not* a behavior. While homosexuality is an ethical issue, being black is an ontological issue in which blacks are endowed by their Creator with more melanin in their skin than non-blacks. They are still human. (Just as a homosexual, by the way, is a full human being.) But it’s important that we affirm what it means to be human without mistakenly bringing behavior into the mix.

I mention pedophilia to show that behavior, even if shown be in-born, does not mean that that behavior should be tolerated or condoned by society. The question is what kind of behavior ought a society deem to be beneficial to that society, and what behaviors should be deemed not tolerable. That’s what a government needs to address – that is, a just government.

It gets more interesting when you bring in an evolutionary worldview into the mix, and then contrast it to a Christian worldview. True Christianity teaches that blacks are children of God just like whites. Adam and Eve had the genetic diversity that made whites and blacks and every other racial difference that natural selection brought out. Evolution, on the other hand, believes that blacks are not as advanced as whites in the evolutionary continuum. Racism is at the heart of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, whether that side wants to admit it or not.

Moreover, Christianity better explains homosexuality – even the “gay-gene.” It’s called the Fall. We are all broken and guilty for our messed up family business – whether we are homosexual perverts or heterosexual perverts. Gay activists who say they believe in evolution, in contrast, assert that homosexuality is an evolved trait that should have the right to exist and be celebrated along with those who hold to heterosexual traits. Notice that word “ought” implied in their claim. “Ought” connotes morality. What is the supreme morality at the foundation of an evolutionary worldview? – getting one’s genes into the next generation. Yet a basic understanding of science tells us that two human beings (or human-oids in the past) practicing in homosexuality would NOT pass their genes to the next generation. In essence, according to their own presuppositions, one who holds to macro-evolution, if they are going to be consistent to their own moral standards, would deem homosexuality as immoral (that is, unable to pass their genes to the next generation). Again, a Christian worldview has a better grounding in claiming homosexuality is wrong, than a homosexual activists has in claiming that homosexuality is right.

Addressing Bologna

I need to say a few things about a column by Cal Thomas which he wrote last week.

The position he takes in this piece entitled Religious right should put politics aside is simply empty-headed. First, he assumes that if Christians engage themselves in the political process, than they are not trusting God. I used to believe that. That philosophy, in fact, was at the heart of why I turned down a job working for Senator DeWine back in the late '90s. Thomas' assumption has no basis with empirical evidence and Scriptural imperatives (e.g. be in the world but not of the world).

Another thing he doesn't understand is the purpose of laws and how it relates to morality. Here's two very short pieces (1 / 2) that I would strongly encourage you read that refutes this presupposition of Mr. Thomas.

If he really believes this view that he asserts in this piece, then he should relinquish his power position as a national syndicated columnist, and go start an orphanage in an obscure town in eastern Kentucky.

I'm not surprised that Thomas is a national syndicated columnist. The leftist media love to give people a microphone, a camera, or a column, who know how to pacify and confuse those religious-right fundamentalists.

Caught on Tape

Last month, a pro-abortion advocate is caught on tape disrupting the free speech rights of a pro-life campus organization. After being posted on youtube, the video has kind of gone viral.

As OneNewsNow.com reports:

“[The vandal] stated that the pro-life group had no right to challenge abortion [vis-à-vis their pro-life display] because [abortion] was made legal in 1973 following the Roe v. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Based on that kind of logic, civil rights activists would have had no right to challenge racial segregation because it was made legal in 1896 following the Plessy v. Ferguson decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

By the way, it was in 1954, that the Supreme Court finally got it right when they handed down their decision in Brown v. Board of Education which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. Perhaps, one day soon, the highest court in the land will correct another egregious error from the past, by finally protecting another class of citizens – the unborn.

Enter At Your Own Risk

As of last Friday, it is now legal in the state of Colorado for men to enter women’s locker rooms. This radical law was the product of gay activists as they continue their campaign to normalize homosexuality in our culture.

Worldnetdaily.com article

The Denver Post makes it seem like this new law is no big deal.

California Court overstepped boundaries with redefinition of marriage

The decision by the California Supreme Court last Thursday was another example of judicial tyranny. As the Dissenting Opinion states, the question of whether marriage should be redefined should not be within the bounds of the court’s jurisdiction. This matter was already decided by the citizens of California back in 2000 when they passed Proposition 22 which codified into law that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The will of the people was therefore usurped by judicial fiat.

Most likely, the decision will be stayed pending the ballot initiative this November, which aims to amend the State Constitution by explicitly stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. If passed, this amendment will protect the will of the people regarding the definition of marriage from further attacks from the state's judicial branch.

Rudy, “The Equivocator”?

We know Arnold is “The Terminator”, but what about Rudy? What’s a good name for him? – Perhaps, “The Equivocator”. If I could ask him one question, it would be, “What do you mean when you say ‘strict constructionists’?” But then, Tony Perkins has already asked him this question. And he writes about it in this article at Politico.

What “hate crimes” laws can do to Christian freedom

Here’s a sample of what can happen if the Senate passes S.1105, the "hate crimes" bill.