Update: I’ve added some links to other homeschoolers I could find supporting various candidates. For beginning researching candidates, I found OnTheIssues.org to be the most helpful site. You can see a brief summary of how each candidate has voted on specific issues along with some quotes. It isn’t extensive, but a good start.
With “Super Duper” Tuesday less than a week away, we have less idea now than ever who the final contestants will be to gain the nomination. And when Next Tuesday is over? It is still quite likely we will not be sure. All the more reason for Thompson to have stayed in the race for a couple of weeks at least. But then, it is rumored he did not really want the nomination. And may have been surprised by the support he received.
In frustration, conservatives are tempted to resign the political process. Not me. I’m gearing up to be 100% involved in the political process, albeit on a far more local level. And that is where most of our politics should be taking place. This statement of Romney’s struck me.
We looked to Washington for leadership, but Washington has failed us.
Why, pray tell, are we even looking to Washington for leadership? Particularly for things like health, education and morality? It reminds me of the Israelites crying out to God for a king. Washington has not failed us. It has done exactly what we have asked of it…slowly crept into every aspect of our lives.
But all is not lost. You can always turn it into a lesson. Mom & Pop Homeschool have some wonderful pages for you to print off to help your children learn more about the primary process and the road to selecting our presidential candidates.
And this weekend, I’ve decided to take a break from normal blogging to invite you to discuss your picks for the primary and the highest office in the land. Who are you leaning toward? Why? And will you vote third party if your candidate does not win? Or just stay home?
And before you roll your eyes and say “eee, politics,” I invite you to take another view. While politics may have become one of two topics you are not supposed to breach in polite society, I think that is a shame. In 1772, Jacob Duche, the Chaplain of Congress (who would later turn Tory) wrote,
The poorest labourer upon the shore of Delaware thinks himself entitled to deliver his sentiments in matters of religion or politics with as much freedom as the gentleman or scholar…. Such is the prevailing taste for books of every kind, that almost every man is a reader; and by pronouncing sentence, right or wrong, upon the various publications that come in his way, puts himself upon a level, in point of knowledge, with their several authors. Education in Colonial America (site may not be working)
And I think that has a lot to do with the revolution which occurred in the minds of Americans, leading us eventually to declare independence.
All views are welcome. Just be nice to each other.
_______
I’ve noted before that it is not fair to try to paint homeschoolers as particularly unified behind any candidate. And I was pleased to see that even among my audience, there is quite a bit of diversity in opinions, ranging from Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton. I was also glad to see that all of my commenters have enough conviction to say what they believe and enough tact to not get personal toward anyone else.
Those who just don’t know who to vote for in the field remaining may feel at home here, because I feel the same. But I wanted to take a moment to pay my respects to those who are a little more convinced of their choices:
Huckabee:
If the media is to be believed, he is the darling of the conservative Christian homeschool movement. And what other homeschool movement is there?
Homeschoolers Heart Huckabee is completely devoted to his campaign, lifting up his record, answering charges and even giving out points for your political support. Considering Homeschooling also made his endorsement public, based on the social issues that I’m sure appeal to many Christians. And there cannot be any doubt who Californians for Huckabee supports. Nor One Mom whose blog launched to “tell a few people why I support Huckabee.” 80,000 visits later, she is pretty well known among Huckabee supporters. Jess@Home, who I first noticed due to a number of comments supporting Huckabee across the blogs I visit, also seems 100% behind the former Arkansas governor.
MInTheGap says his vote is Huckabee’s to lose, citing some of the same concerns I have had with him since the beginning.
McCain:
That was quick. I’ve found a number of people who have said they will vote for him if he is nominated, but no homeschoolers sporting the badge in their sidebar just yet. If you know of any, please let me know!
Correction: I found someone! In comments, Crimson Wife of Bending the Twigs indicated support for McCain. I think he has a tough road trying to convince a lot of conservatives to forgive some of the prominent legislation bearing his name (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy) as well as his opposition to Bush’s tax cuts. Time will tell what that all means for November!
Romney:
Conservatism With Heart was all for Giuliani. But with his exit, she has searched other pastures, settling on the Massachusetts governor. Grizzly Mama seems to be heading to the same field, with Thompson’s exit. Mostly because he is not McCain. Boy wouldn’t it be nice to have the passion those Huckabee supporters have? Or the Paul supporters? But I’ll get to them in a minute.
Ron Paul:
I will give Paul supporters credit for their passion. A bit too much at times…I think I have more issues with some his supporters than I do with him, but that is another story. Consent of the Governed has been passionately behind Paul since the beginning. Even back when his candidacy was merely rumored. Homeschoolers for Ron Paul, not to be confused with Homeschoolers for Ron Paul is dedicated to promoting the mild-mannered internet phenomenon from Texas. Ron Paul for President is not Ron Paul, but shares a a great deal of information. And Let A Woman Learn, who is one of the few people I “know” using the same educational approach as I.
Clinton:
Ok, this is really just a favor for Shawna. Because I really like Shawna and do not hold her choice of candidates against her. Fast Times at Homeschool High has a short post indicating support of Senator Clinton.
Obama:
And this is for Lindsey. A post on a community blog. And The Homeschooling Mommy, who has some really catchy music playing in the background.
I think the reason folks ‘look to Washington’ is that they have swallowed the idea that only ‘professionals’ are qualified to make important decisions. I see this in schools, in the doctor’s office, in the real estate market….
Well, little ol’ me self-diagnoses, home educates, and did her own FSBO. So there! :p
As for toward whom I am leaning… I know who I am NOT leaning toward- any Democrat, or McCain. I think Guiliani and Paul are done, with Romney being the most likely Republican candidate, although I wouldn’t mind Huckabee, as his ideas for tax reform are better than Mick’s. But I could live with Romney.
And the only thing that would keep me from voting is a whoppin’ case of Ebola.
Dh and I had this very conversation last night. He was saying he didn’t think democracy was working anymore. I told him “yes it is, it’s working great. and it’s going exactly where the people have asked it to go, into every aspect of our lives.”
- He believes the next few presidents will start acting like Chavez and democratically begin chipping away at the Constitution to make him or herself a dictator. And the people will have asked for it.
He’s looking to secede -we are studying the War Between the States, aka the civil war right now
My pick for president. Looking at Clinton or McCain; I’m ready to start campaigning for Obama, on the grounds that he will be inept. Which will be better than Billary. (that’s a joke, we’ve got to laugh in times like this) I would vote for Ron Paul. But not in the general election. He has no chance of winning and will split the conservative vote and we’ll end up with a two-headed Clinton monster.
~C
Paul has stated publicly that he has no intention of running as a third party candidate, so I don’t think you will have to worry about that.
Actually, I was wondering the other day what effect Paul would have. He certainly has a following among Republicans, but there are a lot of Democrats who find is position on foreign policy very good.
Guliani is done. It is funny, everyone complained about Thompson not looking like he wanted the nomination, but I must say I feel the same about Giuliani. He didn’t seem to really be out there to campaign.
As the candidates drop out, it gets harder. I thought narrowing the choices was supposed to make it easier?
I think Huckabee has zero chance in the general eleciton, and I think he is about finished in the primary. Without money, there isn’t much of a campaign.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/22/1246554-some-huckabee-aides-forgoing-paychecks
Ok, something in that article caught my attention, because I must say all else considered, I am impressed that Huckabee has managed to stay where he is with the amount of money being spent on this primary.
“We are running our campaign in a very frugal manner,” Huckabee said. “We have operated in the black. If we don’t have it, we don’t expend it.”
This isn’t a huge amount, but he isn’t exactly in the black:
Huckabee debts: $47,810
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
Here’s a little on the Fair Tax, for those interested:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
I heard Boortz speaking on the subject a couple of weeks ago, and it sounded interesting and something he said left me pondering. He noted it would represent a massive power shift, which of course would be its biggest hurdle.
It is an interesting thought to tax consumption rather than income.
And that leads me to the economic stimulus package. I’m all for getting a bit of my money back, but how is this supposed to stimulate the economy? Through a small flurry of spending?
We’d be better off changing laws and tax codes to help small businesses succeed…so that we could create our own wealth. Not just redistribute it occasionally.
My husband and I finally delved into the subject last night via chat. (Yes, I know that is pathetic.
He wanted me to take an online quiz, so we discussed the results while I read the candidates positions. We still don’t know who to vote for.
But you are right, as the choices diminish the decision is harder because then I disagree with positions of each candidate.
We won’t be voting for a Democrat. Now all we have to decide is who is for the smallest government.
I already voted for Fred by absentee ballot in the Florida primary — before he dropped out. I will vote in the general election for whomever is the Republican nominee. I really don’t want it to be McCain, but I’ll vote for him over Hillary or Obama.
I agree, Renae. Now NRO is reporting Its McCain. Primary over:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjgwNjIxZDA0MjM4YzkyMWE1ZTZmMDcwOGIxNGZiYzg=
That is what I fear, so I’ll be happy with the unknown for the moment. Of course if it isn’t him, it is Romney. And if it isn’t him it is Huckabee. Or possibly Paul, but that doesn’t look too likely unless a LOT of people swallow their concerns regarding foreign policy.
I thought this was interesting:
“In twenty-four years of fighting the so-called ‘tough fights’, John Kerry has only managed to pass eight bills into public law. How exactly is John Kerry fighting for anything, when he cannot even perform the most basic duty of a Senator and shepherd legislation into law?”
http://www.nrsc.org/blog/blogitem.aspx?id=257
Can I ask an odd question?
Is that really indicative of success or failure as a senator? It would greatly depend on what those 8 bills were, and what else he has supported and worked against.
Just throwing out new laws should not any sort of measure of “success” in politics.
Anne, I was looking at McCain the other night. A lot of his positions I really do agree with…in fact, in one of those political tests Renae mentioned (maybe not the same one, I don’t know) McCain’s name came up.
Now, I do know why that is, but I can’t get passed a few of the notable pieces of legislation he has put his name behind.
http://forthardknox.com/2008/01/30/why-do-conservatives-hate-mccain/
Thompson is a friend of McCain’s and there has been talk of him as VP. Seems like an odd combination, but who knows? There is other speculation that he only stayed in as long as he did to aid McCain.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/15/a_mccain-thompson_alliance.html
All the political speculation is always interesting to watch.
I say real change, real surprise.
I’m imagining the surprise of an Obama-McCain cross-party ticket, for example, however we get there. (it could happen folks, this time stranger things have happened already!)
I will be the lone stander on this blog I am sure as I am definitely a Hillary supporter. I decided to vote for Hillary back in the early 90’s when Bill was actually President. I was impressed with her keen intelligence, her ability to speak, her strength, her in depth knowledge.
It goes beyond just issues for me, beyond character. I want a candidate that can think and reason and analyze. I want a candidate who is strong and able to stand up to those who need to be stood up too, but strong enough to listen when needed; strong enough to consider and not bully her way through. I want a candidate who has a deep knowledge base of this country and its founding and history to current times.
I also believe in the common good; and yes, I think the common good is best served through individualism, that they are not stark contrast of each other.
And… I do want to raise my gender up …collectively speaking. I want to expand her archetype for future generations of woman and men. I think that the female experience has much to lend in the way of leadership and humanity.
“I think that the female experience has much to lend in the way of leadership and humanity.”
I do agree with this, yet disagree with her personally as exemplar of either (female experience of leadership or humanity)
We already knew you were the lone stander, Shawna. : ) But I’m glad you shared your thoughts, as well!
I’ll come back to this later, but right now I’m trying to find some information on main idea. I cannot believe how bad the things are I’m coming up with…I guess maybe that is why it is free?
Thanks for your tireless vigilance Dana.
So true, as I was telling a friend the other night – What else IS THERE to talk about but religion and politics!!
I’m definitely voting, but still have much study to do. My vote will go to the man who has the best understanding of *federal* (by correct definition) government and the constitution. (IOW, LESS national government, that knows its limitations.) And irregardless of his (statistical) “possibility” of winning. I will vote my conscience.
Did you see Doug Phillips blog post, Biblical Principles of the Ballet Box?
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/01/3351.aspx
Hi Everyone,
This is my first time posting to a blog! Boo Yah!
Ok, so I’m wondering if I can get some input, from any of you, but I am always intrigued by Dana’s insight. I would like to vote for someone who understands the principle of internal self-government. In my thinking, so far, Billary (Sorry, Shawna! and thanks for sharing!) does not seem to show any understanding of this in her comments. But I’m not sure that any of them do (although I did hear Huckabee somewhere in an interview and was impressed with a comment that seemed to refer to this).
The biggest problem for me is finding accurate information (and the time to read it and digest it!). I’m afraid I cannot speak to much of anything for this coming election because I feel quite ignorant!
Lisa
The big difference between my views on government and those of most of the candidates is the definition of “good government.” Increasingly, we seem to think “good government” is a government that does good things. That is certainly Clinton, Edwards and Obama. Increasingly, that is the Republican Party as well. So the only real difference is what “good things” they will push.
I believe good government protects the people’s rights, and preserves life, liberty and property. We create our own good.
I’ll go through some of the candidates later…maybe you can help me refine my thoughts on each of them.
Oh! And I feel quite honored to bear the marks of your first blog comment! When you are famous, I’ll make a little button and put it in my sidebar, “She commented here first.”
I’ve wrestled with this awhile now. Our primary isn’t until May so I’ve got time. I’ve already decided that I will make my choice out of the top 3 at the time—because there is a fair chance that NC will be a tie-breaker primary if the delegates are still close. So, if you asked me today, the top three would be McCain, Romney, and Huck.
I would vote McCain. It bothers some deep conservatives but he’s the one out of the three I could most live with. Romney I actually like, but he is a bajillionaire. I am sick of that. His mormonism doesn’t bother me half as bad as his pocketbook. (not that I’m jealous, but I just don’t think someone like that really knows how the middle class lives.)
Now, here is where you might pass out on me Dana. Chad and I have talked, and if Obama gets the Dem. nomination over Hill-monster, I will probably vote for him in the election. Yes, republican conservative me, jumping the line and voting for a democrat.
Why?
The dems talk about “change” all the time. I’ll be glad to give them a shot and see what they do with it. Something tells me not much will change except the rhetoric.
The one thing about Obama I like is that he has a likeability factor. I know that is not the only reason to pick a pres, but at least it is a positive.
So if it is Obama versus Huck, Obama gets my vote. Obama and McCain…well, I’d have to really think about it.
Lisa,
Welcome! There are always interesting discussions here on Dana’s blog. I’m glad you were drawn in.
I agree that self government is key, but that has to be in the hearts of people or we will continue voting for larger government to control us. The less people are self governed, the more laws we need.
I actually haven’t listens to many speeches, but I am beginning to read quotes. I’m trying to discern the candidates’ views of government.
Thomas Paine said, “Government is best who governs the least.” Dana, you made a comment about how many laws a congressman passes. I don’t think that is a good test of competence either. I am more interested in what the representative does to protect individual liberty and uphold the Constitution.
I am very discouraged with our options at this point.
I had been most interested in Thompson.
I am not sure who I will vote for as of right now. I have much research to do. However, I certainly will not be voting for any of the democrats. I would be especially concerned about how much more they are going to stick their noses into our personal affairs and also about them giving away our country’s sovereignty. I also think voting democratic will get us more socialism than we already have.
The resource I have really appreciated is the website you posted Dana.
I liked to see what people actually vote for and against. People can say a lot of things, especially during election time. But I want to see what they actually DO.
Linz
When I look at our options, quite frankly, I feel like sitting on the kitchen floor, wrapping my arms around the table legs and screaming like a two-year-old.
“I don’t wanna vote!”
It’s all very discouraging.
Well, I may stand alone too, but I am voting for Ron Paul. My reason is simple:
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” ~ Daniel Webster
At this point, I do not see much difference in the Republican and Democrat candidates. Both parties want to create a better environment by increasing the size of government and spending my money frivolously. And, neither party seems to understand the Constitution very well. It makes little difference to me if I am being governed by someone who is liberal or conservative. In either case, I am not truly free.
Obama? You were serious about that “Anyone but Hillary,” weren’t you? (Just teasing!)
I do sort of like him, as far as just watching the little snips I’ve seen on YouTube, and he is always smiling nicely in the pictures in the paper. But I can’t separate him from his church. The whole black power thing is a little much for me.
Renae and Linz, I agree with you 100%. Well, you too, LOTP. I keep reminding myself of my own post, about how ideas take time to germinate and grow. But I don’t want to wait. I want my mature liberty tree right now.
Julie, there are probably more Ron Paul supporters than you think. : ) I know Charity seemed split between Paul and Thompson, a lady who works with his campaign here in NE has commented here before. Sprittibee had a nice post endorsing Paul. Judy of Consent of the Governed is definitely for him. So you aren’t completely alone.
I’d be all for him, I think, if I agreed with him on foreign policy. I really like a lot of what he says domestically and think he is closer to what I think government should be. But foreign policy is a big issue for me right now.?
Obama? You were serious about that “Anyone but Hillary,” weren’t you? (Just teasing!)
I do sort of like him, as far as just watching the little snips I’ve seen on YouTube, and he is always smiling nicely in the pictures in the paper. But I can’t separate him from his church. The whole black power thing is a little much for me.
Renae and Linz, I agree with you 100%. Well, you too, LOTP. I keep reminding myself of my own post, about how ideas take time to germinate and grow. But I don’t want to wait. I want my mature liberty tree right now.
Julie, there are probably more Ron Paul supporters than you think. : ) I know Charity seemed split between Paul and Thompson, a lady who works with his campaign here in NE has commented here before. Sprittibee had a nice post endorsing Paul. Judy of Consent of the Governed is definitely for him. So you aren’t completely alone.
I’d be all for him, I think, if I agreed with him on foreign policy. I really like a lot of what he says domestically and think he is closer to what I think government should be. But foreign policy is a big issue for me right now.
I’ve been following Dr. Paul’s work for some years. He’s dead on opposing screenings and universal preschool, et al.
Thinking about the foreign policy piece of this concerning Ron Paul,it’s concerning to me too. Even as I wonder how far and where our world interventions should go to protect our country. I really don’t have those answers. But my trust in President Bush’s ‘conservative’ judgment has been seriously changed with his decisions about other issues such as NCLB, et al.
I adore what I see of my IL Senator’s charisma and seeming character. His office was wonderful when we were in DC. He lost my vote when he was persuaded to run (only because of that charisma). His dc voting record as my state representative has been pathetic. Plus, he’s been in Chicago politics long enough that he picked up that taint, ala Rezko. I’ve heard a lot about his church connections, but can’t give it much thought considering his ethnic background. But I just dunno..
But back to Paul’s foreign policy and thinking about the Clinton presidential reign, I wonder if the best thing that happened was the ‘94 republican takeover to curtail Clinton’s grand suggestions about the need to be our Big Daddy like this:
1999-“We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right… But … if you don’t spend it right, here’s what’s going to happen. In 2013 — that’s just 14 years away — taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks… I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, ‘Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?’ “
Seeing the state of our country’s financial affairs now, I can’t help but speculate that a Republican (conservative would have been nice, but I don’t see it happening)President would be helpful in stifling a Democratic congress. It seemed to work ok with a Democratic Prez and Republican congress in the ’90s.
It really seems that our country (the few voters anyway) are so unhappy with our elected leaders that we keep voting for anyone that is for “change”.
I have this problem with almost ALL the candidates!
“But I can’t separate him from his church.”
Some of the worst Presidents have been the most upstanding and moral- because they want to do ‘good things’- but some ‘good things’ take away liberties. And then the evil nasty villians with handlebar mustaches get into power and use those ‘good things’ to exploit and control the citizenry.
I don’t mind what church a candidate does or doesn’t attend or embrace- this country is governed by rule of law, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights contain our guiding principles. If a candidate respects those principles, he can have a shrine to Mickey Mouse in his broom closet for all I care.
I didn’t even bother to change my Unaffiliated status in order to vote in a primary this year, so I have until November to decide for whom to cast my vote.
Wouldn’t it be great if tonight the moderator asked a question about family-friendly policies? You can help make it happen by voting for this question on the Politico website:
All developed nations except for the USA provide paid time off for mothers who give birth. As a father living in Spain, I even get 2 paid weeks off when I have a new child born. I believe this reflects a larger problem where we have not reconciled life/work balance in a 2-income-household economy. What would you do as president to begin reconciling our 21st economy with our 20th century approach/options to family care?
Vote for this question: http://dyn.politico.com/debate/actPlaceVote.cfm?questionID=8436
Regarding religion: I mostly agree to you…people can come to the same conclusions based on different faiths, principles or whatever. Obama’s churches praise of Farrakhan bothered me, but he is backing away from that, to his credit. I don’t know all that much about it, and didn’t mean to paint him in an unfair light based on it. Here is a little more, based only on a quick search.
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/01/obama-feels-the.html
And Susan, I agree with you. Ron Paul had a good few minutes on Glen Beck the other day.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/28800
I think there is a lot that we can and should do to pull out of our various entanglements.
This expresses my opinion, for better or worse:
One set of factors that I examined did consistently raise the likelihood that people from a given country will participate in terrorism—namely, the suppression of civil liberties and political rights, including freedom of the press, the freedom to assemble, and democratic rights. Using data from the Freedom House Index, for example, I found that countries with low levels of civil liberties are more likely to be the countries of origin of the perpetrators of terrorist attacks. In addition, terrorists tend to attack nearby targets. Even international terrorism tends to be motivated by local concerns.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist
Dana, I can understand your concern about Obama’s church as the minister’s support of Farrakhan is pretty hateful. One of the comments on IR said this and I think I have to agree:
If Obama is unable to change Wright’s mind, he should leave the church, Foxman said.
I can relate to good, mission oriented people being in a church, but the leader(s) being corrupted for whatever purposes. I imagine Senator Obama is learning that what might fly in Chicago doesn’t fly across the country.
Thanks for that link to Glenn Beck…I still haven’t listened to (read) it all, but appreciate the ‘net for catch ups. It’s amazing how much the www has transformed the campaign process.
After listening to the Romney/McCain brawl/debate the other night as cnn blatantly excluded and put off the other 2 candidates, I am disgusted..again. Wonder how the Democratic debate went last night.
Sunniemom, I am afraid that when you mentioned broom closet, I wasn’t thinking Mickey Mouse, but Monica instead. ugghh
I saw he was moved up to the number one spot for “most liberal senator.” I don’t know what all goes into that, but it isn’t a great plus for me, obviously. : ) Since he publicly backed away from the pastor’s support of Farrakhan, I won’t hold it against him…I dislike campaign years because everyone is trying to reinvent themselves. Something like this happens and I’m not sure if it is a genuine disagreement or one made for political purposes!
I heard about the debate. Spared viewing it by lack of television! I don’t know what to think about the group we have left. Charity over at She’s Right had a nice short entry and I couldn’t help think one thing.
She writes:
On the bright side, I will have plenty to blog about once the Democratic president starts messing up the country.
http://shesright.org/2008/01/31/romneys-image/
And I couldn’t help but think that we’ll have just as much of the same kind of thing to blog about with a McCain presidency. Except that it will be much harder to watch “my party” tear the country that way.
I don’t particularly like any of the candidates running, but I did switch my voter registration from “Decline to State” (Californian for Independent) to Republican so that I can vote for McCain. He’s pro-Life, a fiscal conservative, has by far the most experience of any major candidate, is pro-campaign finance reform, pro-alternative energy, supports vouchers for low-income students, and he actually served his country in the military. Also, he is the only Republican who beats both Hillary and Obama in a head to head matchup. Both Romney and Huckabee would lose by double-digits to either.
Yeah, I found a homeschooler supporting McCain! I’ll add your link to the post.
I was looking at McCain, and he has a lot of things that are good and I support. In fact, he really looks like Senator Thompson in a lot of things. I’ll give him some pluses:
Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights record. (That, to me, is about as amusing as saying that a low score from the NEA indicates an anti-education record.)
Rated 45% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (See what I mean?)
Q: How can we improve the quality of public schools in this country?
A: Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America. That means charter schools, that means home schooling, it means vouchers, it means rewarding good teachers and finding bad teachers another line of work. It means rewarding good performing schools, and it really means in some cases putting bad performing schools out of business. I want every American parent to have a choice, a choice as to how they want their child educated, and I guarantee you the competition will dramatically increase the level of education in America. And I applaud our former Governor [Jeb] Bush for the great job he’s done on education in Florida and America.
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
(Click on School Choice)
I don’t know that this is the best, but it is what I could find in a quick search to highlight some of my less-than-enthusiastic reaction to McCain:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI4MGI=
While I can’t say I’ll be persuaded to vote Democrat if he wins, I won’t be any happier than I was when I voted for Bush. Not that I’m particularly excited by the other two.
Oh, the fun of politics.
I definitely do have concerns about McCain’s position on immigration but I happen to support his position on campaign finance reform. Special interest groups have way too much influence over our government and I’m sorry but I don’t see it as a “freedom of speech” issue.
I’m not exactly for McCain as much as I dislike him less than the rest of the bunch and I really, really don’t want to see Hillary or Obama in the White House.
I think there needs to be some sort of reform, but I’m not sure that his bill was it. The recent incident seems to show a problem (I only know what I’ve gleaned from a few blogs, so forgive me if this is off!) He accused Romney of supporting a timetable, which isn’t true on the eve of the primary. There was no ability for any other organization to purchase an ad to counteract that.
I don’t really how to fairly counteract the issues…I think under the idea of freedom of assembly, we should be able to get together and purchase television ads for whatever causes we want. Obviously there are problems there. But I know some have even looked at blogs supporting specific problems in the same light.
This is about their little spat re: the timeline.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016768.php
And his reported attempt to switch parties:
http://mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033
It’s all very interesting. I’m a bit troubled with Thompson’s departure. And I really haven’t decided who to vote for, and am set to stomach who gets nominated, I think. Unlike Ann Colter, I don’t think I’ll be endorsing Hillary any time soon. So here is the best political article I’ve read in a long time:
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/649xhmla.asp
It has been intersting reading comments. A vast majority of comments reflect desires for governmental influence to be reduced in this country. I would submit to you that governmental influence will INCREASE by the election of every single candidate. I say this because the actions by the Legislative and Judicial branches of the government would continue their path of increased governmental control to do “good work”. BUT, this progress can be slowed by electing the correct President.
The only candidate that would not allow the Executive branch to increase influence and hopefully limit the continued encroachment by the other branches is Dr. Ron Paul. Every single candidate (Democrat and Republican) have indicated how they will use their role as President to increase governmental influence in many areas of our lives from health care to national security to immigration to taxation.
I support candidates based on the principles they hold, profess and act upon. When considering the current slate of Republican candidates for President, Ron Paul is the only one at this time that I can determine to embrace biblical and constitutional principles (regardless of his position on the war – more on that later). I am not claiming that he is perfect, but when considering biblical and constitutional principles, he is the one who exemplifies them the most and has for the majority of his political career (I can’t speak to his ENTIRE career because I haven’t followed him for that long).
When I look at:
1. Fear God and love Jesus
2. Trustworthy
3. Integrity
4. Sanctity of life
5. Parental rights
6. Education
7. Personal property rights
8. Monetary policy
9. Right to bear arms
10. Foreign policy
11. Limited government
12. American sovereignty
Ron Paul scores higher in every one of these areas than any of the other candidates from what I have been able to determine.
With regards to the his position on the war in Iraq…when I consider the whole of God’s word I see exhortations to avoid debt; that unequal weights and measures are an abomination to the Lord; that greed is evil; that theft is wrong; that subjecting others to my authority (instead of acknowledging the authority of Jesus Christ) is evil; that doing unto others differently than I would want them to do to me is wrong, etc. When considering the war in Iraq (including the actions, purpose and results of the war), I see biblical principles being violated in the name of a “war on terror” (take the war to the islamofascist’s soil so we don’t have to fight them on ours).
If we consider Daniel, Hanania, Mishael and Azariah in the book of Daniel, they refused to compromise the commands of God even if it meant death by fire or by being torn limb by limb by a lion. I don’t see a preemptive war policy to be a biblical or constitutional. I do see a non-interventionist policy to be more in line with biblical and constitutional principles. Ron Paul’s desire may or may not be the absolute best action or alternative, but it is clearly based on more sound biblical and constitutional principles than the current policy of our government…which every other Republican candidate happens to support.
So all in all, when considering biblical and constitutional principles in many different areas, Ron Paul is the candidate I am choosing.
Thank you, Brian. I finally have a Ron Paul supporter. Well, that isn’t fair, because Susan of Corn & Oil is, too.
I really like Ron Paul on a lot of domestic issues, with some reservations about certain things and concerns regarding what he would do with foreign policy. I do not think that an immediate withdrawal of Iraq is a good idea, regardless of all the reasons we went in.
To say we went there to keep from fighting them here is a bit of rhetoric that really doesn’t make a lot of sense. We were attacked, and had every right to go after Al Qaeda. It wasn’t preemptive. It was defensive.
I am a little leery of using what I say are biblical principles in warfare, because most of what I see is “kill every man, woman and child.” At least when we look at how wars were dealt with in the Old Testament. The New Testament doesn’t really address warfare because it is about our personal relationship with Christ, not so much about civil government.
Oh, and this was bothering me earlier, so I’ll clarify now. When I said “I will give Paul supporters credit for their passion. A bit too much at times…I think I have more issues with some his supporters than I do with him, but that is another story.” I wasn’t referring to anyone I linked to, nor everyone who is a passionate supporter of Paul.
I’m talking about the comments I’ve seen peppered across blogs which immediately get personal and vicious anytime someone questions Paul. That sort of thing turns me off, even if it isn’t something that can fairly be attributed to the candidate. I just didn’t want you to think that I’m hostile to his supporters. He has a lot of support among my readers, and none of them have ever discussed on that level.
Dana,
Regarding “We were attacked, and had every right to go after Al Qaeda”.
Ron Paul did vote in favor of going to Afghanistan to get those who took credit for the 9/11 attack. Iraq, on the other hand, had nothing to do with 9/11 and the Bush Administration has admitted to that.
Staying in Iraq to correct a wrong also doesn’t make sense to me.
When I talk about biblical application of warfare, I am talking about everything that surrounds the act of warfare, not just the act of war itself.
Is it right for you as an individual to steal food because you are starving? Is it right for you as an individual to lie on a loan application in order to qualify for a loan on your house? Is it right for you to borrow money from your neighbor (with the intention to never pay it back) to send your children to a private school? Is it right for you as an individual to build a barn on your neighbor’s property and then defend that right with a gun in your hand?
If these actions are not right (anti-biblical), then how is it right for the government to do the same things on a national and international scale?
We need oil as a country to operate…should we use military might to maintain a supply of oil from Iraq? Should we borrow money against the future of Americans to maintain this supply of oil? Should we devalue the US dollar in order to keep the wealth of those who profit from a war in Iraq in their hands? Should we devalue the dollar in order to continue to fund the killing of innocent people in Iraq? Should we use the best fighting force in the world to exert our influence and authority over people in another country who happen to live in an area we need to control for our own selfish interests?
When I discipline my children, I tell them they must recognize their sin and then repent (turn 180 degrees) from their sin. This doesn’t mean, “dad, I will stop as soon as my brother gives the ball back to me.” This doesn’t mean, “dad, I will repent as soon as I am able to ruin the drawing by my sister like she ruined mine.”
Repenting means to stop doing what we are doing wrong and turn from it. As long as we honor & obey God in all things, we can leave the results/consequences to Him.
As a nation, we were wrong to go into Iraq [period]…no matter how evil Sadam Hussein was. By making a mess of the region, our continued killing of people and stealing from the American people does not make our remaining in the region right.
We did not honor Christ by going to Iraq. I don’t believe staying in Iraq is honoring to Him either.
Dana,
Regarding “The New Testament doesn’t really address warfare because it is about our personal relationship with Christ, not so much about civil government.”
Are you saying that the New Testament has nothing to do with civil government?
How can we separate the actions of individuals from the actions of a group? Can individuals act in ways that adhere to the principles of the New Testament, and then somehow [miracuoulsly] the civil government then acts in evil ways? If all civil servants acted in ways according to the New Testament, I don’t think any of us would be complaining about the encroachment of government.
If the New Testament has nothing to do with civil government, then what is our complaint about public schools?
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
And on and on…Do these scriptures NOT apply to the public education system?
Are there 2 standards? One for individual behavior and one for civil government behavior? How are they distinquished in God’s word?
Christ did say:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
AND
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
By implying that the New Testament does not apply to civil government, you might be implying that there is some sort of separation between the Old and the New Testaments. I do not believe this is true.
I think you make a false comparison. Firstly, we aren’t really in Iraq over oil. I suppose it is part of why we are more concerned about stability in the Middle East, but it might actually be easier to go after Venezuela…or just drill in our own country.
We didn’t go in just because Hussein was evil, or because of Human Rights abuses.
We went in because because Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement in which they had agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons. Whether or not they actually possessed the agents, they refused to cooperate.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/crs/Crsiraq2.htm
We were in diplomatic relations for years with Iraq.
http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/#Iraq_and_Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction
And all the information we had suggested they had weapons they were hiding.
And they continued to be a threat. Al Qaeda continued to be a presence.
Now, I don’t know that I would necessarily have done the same thing. I don’t know. I only know what was reported in the newspaper, and not all of that. But at the time, we were willing to work with those countries which were working with us, and not with those who posed a threat.
We aren’t building a house in Iraq, and we aren’t taking them over as some sort of American colony. Pulling out now will likely have the same effect that leaving Germany in the state we did after WWII had. There will be a power vaccuum and it will return to something worse.
Regarding the New Testament, no, that isn’t what I said or meant. If you can show me where it lays out warfare, please do.
The reason I am reluctant to go that direction is that I don’t know exactly where you are coming from, at this point. To say “biblical principles” doesn’t mean that much to me without the scriptures and principles you are specifically referring to. I have been in churches which used “biblical principles” to demonstrate that we should not be involved in civil government at all (my kingdom is not of this world), have no right to bear arms (same verse) believe in complete pacifism and know of those who recommend others not to pay their taxes, not to obey their state laws in regards to registering homeschools and any number of things. And then there are those who seem to raise their sons for war.
I’ll venture to guess that most Christians believe they are following their faith in their stances on these issues, whether it is Shawna’s vote for Clinton, yours for Paul, Crimson Wife’s for McCain or whoever we want to pull into it.
My biggest concern with Paul is in regards to these foreign policy issues.
These old newsletters and his appearances on Alex Jones bother me as well. I know he says he didn’t write the newsletters and I actually think he has handled the fallout pretty well by remaining calm and taking “moral responsibility.” Every politician has some sort of skeleton in the closet, I guess. It isn’t a big issue, and if that were all there were, I might not worry about it so much. But it does bother me somewhat.
Wow!
What a great conversation! I should’ve come here earlier!! The volley between Dana and Brian was especially intriguing to me. I, too, thought, as Dana does, that we did not go to Iraq over oil. Nor are we staying there over oil. Many people believe like Brian does on this issue. I am going to look up the links you posted, Dana, and I thank you both for sharing your thoughts.
As an aside – I’m beginning to like Ron Paul a little better as I learn more. This election is a little scary for me – I almost feel, like Brian mentioned in his first post, that no matter who we elect, the government will grow. I have a friend who works in the Colorado Gov’t building. He seems to have come to the same conclusion.
Also, Linz mentioned that the virtue of the people will determine the form of government we maintain, or change to. I agree! Our founders said that without a virtuous people, our form of gov’t will not remain. Without biblical teaching, no one knows what virtue is!
And, Dana, when I’m famous, you will have gotten there first!!
Lisa
Lisa, there are things I REALLY like about Paul. But there has been something holding me back since the beginning. I don’t know that I can say exactly what it is. I keep contemplating it, but I can’t quite resolve what the real issue is.
My daughter can’t wait until she can vote. She wants to vote for George Washington. She thinks he can do a better job dead than the rest of them can alive. Gotta love the loyalty of a nine year old. : )
Brian, so you know a little more where I’m coming from, here is the most I’ve written on Ron Paul:
http://principleddiscovery.com/2008/01/01/a-little-hope-for-conservative-voters/
And I know Lisa will understand what I’m saying with this, but I don’t think the US is ready for it. Liberty will come when we take responsibility for ourselves. Right now, if we turned everything back the way it should be, we would have a tremendous problem on our hands.
The reason we have gotten where we are is because the sins of the nation…a long time of blaming our situations rather than taking responsibility for our own actions. We no longer wish for God to rule over us and are seeking a king. Exactly as the Israelites did with Samuel.
Oh, I’ll make a stab at going through this after all.
Are you saying that the New Testament has nothing to do with civil government?
Not exactly, no. It emphasizes our relationship with God and with each other. This will have an effect on the kind of government we will have (Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there will be liberty.)
Government is an effect. When the people are moral, the government will be. In a Christian sense, self-government means that I am governed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Civil governments exist to uphold the good, but if the people are not good, nor will the government.
How can we separate the actions of individuals from the actions of a group?
It depends…who is the individual and who is the group? Individually, you and I are Christian. As a group, the US is not. What is our relationship to the state? It is an interesting question that I cannot so quickly walk away from. I believe we have a “Christian form of government” but I understand under that the importance of self government, as I sort of defined above. Our system of government is only possible in so far as the people are self-governed, ie., in so far as we are virtuous.
Can individuals act in ways that adhere to the principles of the New Testament, and then somehow [miracuoulsly] the civil government then acts in evil ways?
Of course. Rome did it. I’m assuming you mean a Christian nation in which most of the voters are Christian? But first we have to determine what exactly the New Testament says about our relationships and whether how “we” are acting are indeed evil. I’m not yet convinced that it is.
If all civil servants acted in ways according to the New Testament, I don’t think any of us would be complaining about the encroachment of government.
No, we would be complaining about the separation of church and state. (That was an attempt at a joke.)
But I think liberty flows the other direction. If we all acted according to the gospel, our civil servants would as well. They act no differently than we do. It was obvious something was seriously wrong in America when Clinton was able to win with a campaign slogan like “Character doesn’t matter.” What else matters? The character issue is with me, my family and my neighbor. That is where we fix our nations problems.
If the New Testament has nothing to do with civil government, then what is our complaint about public schools?
You are reading too much into my statement. But still, the following is directed at Christians, not government officials.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
True, but not really directly relevant to the discussion.
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
This is highly relevant. Maybe we should go in this direction from here. : )
2Ti 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
No arguments there.
1 Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
And true again. But not quite relevant.
And on and on…Do these scriptures NOT apply to the public education system?
I never made that argument. They apply to us and how we should deal with children. They put the responsibility on us, something that every Christian should take seriously when they choose how to educate their children. But somewhere along the way, parents gave up their responsibility to education their children and turned it over to the local school district. When that failed, they turned it over to the state. Still not satisfied, they are asking for the federal government to step in. Ask anyone about public education and you are likely to hear one of several responses including, “the state should do something” and “we need to spend more on education.” People do not understand their own responsibility to educate their children, hence the public school system as it looks today. Pull that away, and we will have a great problem with uneducated youth. People need to take responsibility first. Then the system can be dismantled.
Are there 2 standards? One for individual behavior and one for civil government behavior? How are they distinquished in God’s word?
I’m not sure how to answer, because you are still arguing against a point I didn’t really make.
Christ did say:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Yes. And we may differ greatly on what exactly that means. I don’t know. But when he said on the cross, “It is finished,” (John 19:30) I believe He fulfilled the law.
AND
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
True. The foundation for the entire scripture hangs first on honoring God and second on our relationship to each other. Everything else is a natural extension of that. No argument there. : )
By implying that the New Testament does not apply to civil government, you might be implying that there is some sort of separation between the Old and the New Testaments. I do not believe this is true.
No, not a separation. But we are also not exactly bound by Old Testament law. The Old Testament is a picture of Christ, a shadow of what was to come. All of it prepares us for Christ’s coming. I think the best book I’ve read outside the bible about the bible is “On the Way to Jesus” (Bayliss). It has been updated and I think has a different title, now, but I haven’t read that one.
And this guy:
http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=1458
He’s my favorite teacher. I could spend hours on that site. In fact, I think my husband just popped in one of the DVDs so I think I’ll go watch that.
Of course, none of that really gets us any closer to resolving whether or not there was a scriptural basis for going into Iraq. And I’m not much of a theological scholar, but it is an interesting conversation nonetheless.
Dana,
On the Bible and government, all I can say is, ok, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Somehow I thought you were trying to imply that biblical standards for a government are different from the standards for an individual. I guess what you were really trying to indicate is that the principles for warfare are not clearly delineated in the New Testament.
My point in all of this is that regardless of the specific principles for warfare, there are other biblical principles that are being violated in order to wage the war in Iraq. I am of the belief that God will not honor or bless the activities of an individual or a government when anti-biblical activities are used in accomplishing a task (war). God is sovereign and may use the task for His purposes, but that does not justify man’s (government’s) use of anti-biblical principles in accomplishing the task.
Specifically, debt financing, unequal weights and measures, theft, deception, and greed. We can’t claim that the means justifies the end.
Some articles to consider
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_01_28/cover.html
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_11/feature.html
http://www.northjersey.com/news/nationalpolitics/14461897.html
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/27/perspective/8_35_561_26_08.txt
Specifically, debt financing, unequal weights and measures, theft, deception, and greed. We can’t claim that the means justifies the end.
You haven’t really convinced me at this point that this is happening. Debt, yes. But theft? Deception? Greed? I don’t see it from what you’ve posted thus far. I see a nation defending itself and holding other nations to treaties they signed.
I don’t have time to look at the articles you posted just now, but will later tonight.
And I don’t know of anyone who is claiming that the ends justifies the means.
Dana,
Let’s regroup a little bit and review what we know and the perspectives we each hold.
First of all, I very much respect your willingness, knowledge and discipline throughout your blog to seek details and truth. I am not claiming to know the absolute truth when it comes to foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and the positions of all candidates, but maybe we can shed some light on what we have discussed and some of the questions you have raised in your last post.
Our discussion began when you commented:
“I’d be all for him [Ron Paul], I think, if I agreed with him on foreign policy. I really like a lot of what he says domestically and think he is closer to what I think government should be. But foreign policy is a big issue for me right now.?”
AND
“I really like Ron Paul on a lot of domestic issues, with some reservations about certain things and concerns regarding what he would do with foreign policy. I do not think that an immediate withdrawal of Iraq is a good idea, regardless of all the reasons we went in.”
With foreign policy being a big issue for you right now, we need to understand the facts surrounding the conflict in Iraq in order to determine whether an immediate withdrawal of Iraq is a good idea or not AND whether Dr. Ron Paul has a sound foreign policy.
1. WHY DID THE US BEGIN BOMBING IRAQ?
At the time, there were many reasons and speculations being discussed and presented to the world and US citizens.
As you pointed out, “We went in because Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement in which they had agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons. Whether or not they actually possessed the agents, they refused to cooperate.”
This is what we were being told by the UN and the Bush Administration. After going into Iraq, we learned that Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs and he confirmed prior to his death that he was maintaining a deception, therefore the only actual charge that remains is that Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate. In a sense he did cooperate…he agreed to destroy all chemical and biological weapons…he apparently did (because he didn’t have any), but he didn’t openly let the world know that he had complied.
Another reason that has been presented is that our actions in Iraq were for defensive reasons based on terrorist attacks as you have stated, “We were attacked, and had every right to go after Al Qaeda. It wasn’t preemptive. It was defensive.”
Since that time, it has been proven and confirmed by the Administration that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and has/had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Therefore, our actions were not defensive, but rather preemptive.
So, this leaves us really with the only reason, that we have been told, to go into Iraq is because Saddam Hussein was not cooperating with the demands of the world. I find it tyrannical that we would use military force against a nation and it’s people because they refused to cooperate with international demands. It gives me pause when considering the actions our government and/or UN may be inclined to use against those who they determine to be some sort of threat (think Germany vs. homeschool families).
The other reasons that have been reported by people outside of the Bush Administration include, nation-building, oil, power and influence.
You stated: “We aren’t building a house in Iraq, and we aren’t taking them over as some sort of American colony.” We may not be building an American colony and calling it such, but as documentation has shown, we are ensuring American influence on the affairs of the Iraqi nation and people.
Since the initial reasons presented by the Administration were unfounded, it is prudent for us to ask whether remaining in Iraq has merit.
2. WHY SHOULD WE REMAIN IN IRAQ?
One of the reasons that you have stated for remaining in Iraq is that “There will be a power vacuum and it will return to something worse.”.
I find this to be merely speculation. There is no way for you or I (or even our national leaders) to know for certain that this will happen. History may show that it CAN happen, but there is no certainty that it WILL happen.
Besides that, what business is it of US to disrupt the power structure within a nation, seek to conform a nation to our method of rule, and then ensure that they submit to the restructure as the US sees fit?
Also, since our initial reasons for attacking Iraq were unfounded, how can we know that remaining is founded on truth, honesty, and a righteous cause? If in fact the results of an immediate withdrawal are disastrous, then it only underscores that our initial motivations to enter Iraq were completely unfounded and we have now made the situation in the nation worse than they were when we found it. How can we be certain that our continued presence will then continue to lead to even greater consequences? When will the damage we cause be enough?
From the other perspective, remaining in Iraq will result in continued loss of American and Iraqi lives, can continue to enflame hatred towards the US, and continue to promote unethical US influence over Iraq and the Middle East region.
We are a nation quick to claim our own sovereignty, but when another nation wishes to declare the same, we are quick to squelch their assertiveness. We needlessly entangle ourselves in the affairs of others which is in direct violation of our governing principles and founding intent of our nation.
I will use another post to address your other questions.
My main problem with your reasoning is that you have to prove that we were in full knowledge that Iraq did not have WMD…but we have multiple reports that he did, not just from our own government, but from others as well. It was Hussein’s job to prove he didn’t, which is difficult when you kick all the inspectors out.
We acted on the intelligence we had and on the fact that Hussein wasn’t cooperating. And honestly, I’m not exactly convinced that there weren’t WMD that were not uncovered. The evidence of sarin gas at least seems likely:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/us/23believers.html?pagewanted=print
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007/03/the_chlorine_gas_attacks_in_ir.php (of course, the gas used here could have come from anywhere)
http://boortz.com/nuze/200411/11172004.html
I’m still not convinced that the initial strike against Iraq is unfounded. Especially since we keep finding high ranking members of Al Qaeda there.
I believe we differ not on whether there were WMDs or not (there is no way for either of us to know for certain), but we disagree on whether we and/or the UN had the right to know, demand or require cooperation from Saddam Hussein. The reliability of those who claimed the existance WMDs is questionable (Saddam Hussein himself admitted he didn’t have them) and I am not quick nor will I blindly believe them.
If none of the other motivations and/or benefits for attacking Iraq exist (nation-building, wealth, power, influence, oil), then I would probably agree with you. But as long as these alternative motivations exist AND the intelligence was proven to be incorrect, it is not as simple as just following the direction of the Bush Administration.
This along with the answers to your other questions (greed, theft, deception, etc), places doubt in my mind that going to Iraq was wrong and remaining in Iraq is just as wrong (biblically and constitutionally).
I will try to finish up the other response in a little bit.
You asked: “You haven’t really convinced me at this point that this is happening. Debt, yes. But theft? Deception? Greed? I don’t see it from what you’ve posted thus far. I see a nation defending itself and holding other nations to treaties they signed.”
When we take a look at the cost to wage a war in Iraq, we are completely using borrowed money (debt) to wage this war. However, to look into it further, does the US government intend to pay this debt back? If they do intend to pay it back, how will they do so? The government does not produce income, they only receive contributions and then redistribute those contributions to other parties.
As a private citizen, if you borrow from your neighbor but never intend to, nor have the means to, pay them back, is this debt or is it theft?
Many people maintain that taxation is a form of theft. Many people maintain that borrowing without the intent to repay is theft. Others maintain that if the government does it, then it is national debt and a fact of life that we just live with. We have stopped calling evil evil.
When we look into monetary policy a little deeper to find out where the money used to wage the war comes from, it really isn’t debt, but instead it is directly related to what is called debauching the currency.
Since the government does not create income or wealth, it can only redistribute or redirect that which it already has or it borrows money from other nations who are holding on to US dollars. In order to create more money to spend it must somehow change the value of the currency. This is done 2 ways; one by printing more currency, and two by reducing interest rates.
As more currency is put into circulation, the value of the currency which already exists in the economy has less value than it did before the new currency has been introduced (a form of theft) and is called debauching the currency. Debauching currency is the use of unequal weights and measures and God has condemned this practice in His word (Prov 11:1; Prov 20:10).
Recently, the Federal Reserve Bank has inject billions of new dollars into the US economy, thus debauching the currency. They have also reduced interest rates, thus encouraging debt and reducing the impact of the mistaken federal borrowing practices. These actions are stealing from the American people AND the war in Iraq is and will continue to be one of the primary reasons for these actions.
Let’s consider one of the many entitlement programs that the government provides…social security. Most people who are currently contributing to social security under coercion do not intend to ever see their contributions return to them (as promised)…again, another form of theft. As we expend more money on the war in Iraq, does the possibility of receiving social security for future generations increase or decrease? Obviously, the possibility of receiving social security payments for future generations is drastically reduced. Has the federal government declared to the people from whom they are leveraging their future that they will no longer be entitled to receive that which was promised (i.e. deception)?
I use an entitlement just as an example, but, debauching the currency is wrong, AND it is robbing future generations. I just don’t see anywhere in scripture that God allows, commands or provides for participating in actions that are an abomination to Him for the advancement of His work. He does the exact opposite. God condemns and/or curses those who do not follow His commands. He does not bless them. He is faithful to those who are obedient to His commands EVEN IF THE CONSEQUENCES ARE BAD (e.g. Daniel, Hanania, Mishael and Azariah). We cannot continue with these actions and claim righteousness in Iraq. Righteousness should outweigh pragmatism even if the outcomes are life threatening.
For an example of deception…Let’s just say for a moment that the plan to go to Iraq does fit into an overall plan to gain power and control in the middle east; to ensure access to the resources of the middle east; and to influence the governmental structure of the nation of Iraq. We cannot deny that this IS a possibility. It is happening and these outcomes will be results from our actions in Iraq (the only question is whether they were intentional or were they planned). Has the US government been forthcoming about these plans? No, they have not, just like they have not been forthcoming about the plans for a North American Union.
Another example…Some of the claims to remain in Iraq is to “liberate” the Iraqi people. As we are actively liberating the people in Iraq, what is happening to our freedoms and liberties in the US? Have our liberties been increased or reduced? Can we travel from point A to point B more freely today that we could in the past? Can we carry weapons as freely as we could in the past? Can we correspond as freely as we could in the past? Many of our freedoms have been restricted in recent years, which seems ironic to me, since the time that we have gone to Iraq for the cause of liberty. Again, another act of deception on the part of our government.
You also stated, “And I don’t know of anyone who is claiming that the ends justifies the means.” AND “There will be a power vacuum and it will return to something worse.”
In essence you are claiming that avoiding a power vacuum (the end) in Iraq requires remaining in Iraq with military force (the means). In other word, the end of avoiding bad people from taking control of Iraq justifies the means of continued military occupation in Iraq.
I believe our founding principals require that we only entangle our country in affairs of direct defense of our nation. Bad people moving into Iraq, threatens Iraq. IT MAY some time in the far future threaten the US, but again, we are not under direct threat TODAY by bad people moving into Iraq.
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1400.htm
There are so many issues surrounding the foreign policy of our nation. I truly believe based on comments, actions and decisions by President Bush that his mentality is to be a policeman for the advancement of democracy throughout the world. Another way of stating this is, President Bush has a mentality of injecting American influence in every nation of the world and the New World Order must be created and controlled by the US. Every Republican candidate has the same exact mentality except for Ron Paul. Ron Paul recognizes the dangers of globalization; the dangers and evil actions of debauching the currency; the dangers of entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations; the evil of restricting freedoms of citizens; and the dangers of trying to be the police force for the world.
Congress may continue to drag us into entanglements throughout the world. If we have a willing President, we will continue in unnecessary entanglements. But, if we have an unwilling President, then our entanglements will be reduced and minimized.