Thursday, December 29, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Why I am supporting Ron Paul for 2012
I have chosen to support Ron Paul in the 2012 Iowa Caucus.
This is a departure from my typical, very "mainstream" political views. I supported Fred Thompson in the last caucus and supported President George W. Bush while he was in office. Below I will share my reasoning for supporting Ron Paul. By the way, I'm just raising a young family and working full time, so I don't claim to be an expert. But none the less, I will share my unsolicited opinion.
1. The country needs a dramatic shift and challenge to our long accepted assumptions. There are many good people running for President in this election. However, ask yourself, "How long will my candidate preserve the American experiment in representative democracy?" I trust no one but Ron Paul to make a drastic enough change from our current direction to actually extend the life of our republic. Some, like Mitt Romney, will only shift who the federal government empowers by shifting funding and his agenda to reward those whom he believes are worth rewarding. Some, like Rick Santorum, have a spot on Christian worldview which I share, but I am convinced could only move the ball 5 yards down the field for conservatism, which could quickly be undone by the next administration. I fear no one but Ron Paul would actually preserve America as the founders intended.
2. During this election cycle, I have stopped asking myself "Who holds my beliefs?" to "Who holds the beliefs of the founding fathers?" I like our military running all over the world and killing terrorists. But is this what our founders intended? Is this consistent with small government which is subject to the people? There's no question that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum most mirror my lifestyle and beliefs. But is that the measure of a President? Are we just hiring the person who we most like personally? Or are we hiring the person who will serve us, the entire nation, best? Ron Paul has been consistent in supporting and upholding the Constitution.
3. We can not have a small, frugal, Constitutional government if that government is powerful enough and big enough to wage 5 or 6 undeclared, undefined foreign wars simultaneously. Did you ever consider that the only reason the actual attack on the Twin Towers happened because we failed to secure our homeland, not because we were policing ever cave on earth trying to eliminate any Muslim Jihadist? It's time we took a healthy interest in our country alone, strongly securing the borders and its security, and focusing on building up and empowering the people of this nation. Some candidates appear as if they would like to have active military conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and anywhere else that a radical wants to kill off people who are free. If we engage in war with every nation that tolerates or shelters Jihadic Muslims, we will be at war indefinitely. We aren't the first to try military might against Jihadists, considering stopping Muslim Jihad by war has only been going on since the Middle Ages. In addition, the cold war wasn't won by waging war. It's time for this nation to start looking after itself as the Constitution intended, instead of misapplying Matthew 5:14. The church is to be the shining city on a hill, the light of the world, not the U.S. Let's make sure the United States is "safe for democracy" (safe from tyrant bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, and judges) before we worry about the rest of the world.
4. The same means by which the federal government uses to enforce pro-family policies can be used to enforce anti-family policies. If we leave our national morality to the government, and then allow 9 unelected tyrants to be the final authority on everything, pro-family advocates must win every election and appoint every judge. How has that been working out for the past 40 years? That has been pro-family advocates modus operandi for a generation, and at best we have kept things at status quo. If pro-family politicians lose ground, the same techniques can be used against us, to codify homosexual marriage, hate speech legislation, and protect abortion on demand. The reason why Ron Paul has made some of the statements on homosexual marriage he has is because it simply isn't the federal governments role to define marriage. Marriage has already been defined by God's law, and is clearly evidenced in natural law. Again, what I want (marriage defined as only between a man & a woman by the federal government) and what the we should do Constitutionally may be at odds.
5. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands monetary policy, will audit the Fed, and will take us back to a commodity based currency instead of a fiat currency. In terms of preserving our country, this may be the most important point, but it's also extremely complex and something I don't know a lot about.
6. Beyond all this are some of his campaign talking points: Cutting 1 trillion dollars in spending year one. Him taking a salary as president of $39K, the median income in the US. Eliminating unconstitutional & wasteful federal departments, etc.
This is a departure from my typical, very "mainstream" political views. I supported Fred Thompson in the last caucus and supported President George W. Bush while he was in office. Below I will share my reasoning for supporting Ron Paul. By the way, I'm just raising a young family and working full time, so I don't claim to be an expert. But none the less, I will share my unsolicited opinion.
1. The country needs a dramatic shift and challenge to our long accepted assumptions. There are many good people running for President in this election. However, ask yourself, "How long will my candidate preserve the American experiment in representative democracy?" I trust no one but Ron Paul to make a drastic enough change from our current direction to actually extend the life of our republic. Some, like Mitt Romney, will only shift who the federal government empowers by shifting funding and his agenda to reward those whom he believes are worth rewarding. Some, like Rick Santorum, have a spot on Christian worldview which I share, but I am convinced could only move the ball 5 yards down the field for conservatism, which could quickly be undone by the next administration. I fear no one but Ron Paul would actually preserve America as the founders intended.
2. During this election cycle, I have stopped asking myself "Who holds my beliefs?" to "Who holds the beliefs of the founding fathers?" I like our military running all over the world and killing terrorists. But is this what our founders intended? Is this consistent with small government which is subject to the people? There's no question that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum most mirror my lifestyle and beliefs. But is that the measure of a President? Are we just hiring the person who we most like personally? Or are we hiring the person who will serve us, the entire nation, best? Ron Paul has been consistent in supporting and upholding the Constitution.
3. We can not have a small, frugal, Constitutional government if that government is powerful enough and big enough to wage 5 or 6 undeclared, undefined foreign wars simultaneously. Did you ever consider that the only reason the actual attack on the Twin Towers happened because we failed to secure our homeland, not because we were policing ever cave on earth trying to eliminate any Muslim Jihadist? It's time we took a healthy interest in our country alone, strongly securing the borders and its security, and focusing on building up and empowering the people of this nation. Some candidates appear as if they would like to have active military conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, and anywhere else that a radical wants to kill off people who are free. If we engage in war with every nation that tolerates or shelters Jihadic Muslims, we will be at war indefinitely. We aren't the first to try military might against Jihadists, considering stopping Muslim Jihad by war has only been going on since the Middle Ages. In addition, the cold war wasn't won by waging war. It's time for this nation to start looking after itself as the Constitution intended, instead of misapplying Matthew 5:14. The church is to be the shining city on a hill, the light of the world, not the U.S. Let's make sure the United States is "safe for democracy" (safe from tyrant bureaucrats, regulatory agencies, and judges) before we worry about the rest of the world.
4. The same means by which the federal government uses to enforce pro-family policies can be used to enforce anti-family policies. If we leave our national morality to the government, and then allow 9 unelected tyrants to be the final authority on everything, pro-family advocates must win every election and appoint every judge. How has that been working out for the past 40 years? That has been pro-family advocates modus operandi for a generation, and at best we have kept things at status quo. If pro-family politicians lose ground, the same techniques can be used against us, to codify homosexual marriage, hate speech legislation, and protect abortion on demand. The reason why Ron Paul has made some of the statements on homosexual marriage he has is because it simply isn't the federal governments role to define marriage. Marriage has already been defined by God's law, and is clearly evidenced in natural law. Again, what I want (marriage defined as only between a man & a woman by the federal government) and what the we should do Constitutionally may be at odds.
5. Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands monetary policy, will audit the Fed, and will take us back to a commodity based currency instead of a fiat currency. In terms of preserving our country, this may be the most important point, but it's also extremely complex and something I don't know a lot about.
6. Beyond all this are some of his campaign talking points: Cutting 1 trillion dollars in spending year one. Him taking a salary as president of $39K, the median income in the US. Eliminating unconstitutional & wasteful federal departments, etc.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
"That doesn't change who I am as a Christian"
"That doesn't change who I am as a Christian." This quote is usually preceded by someone who is stating their defense of why they make certain choices.
The assertion is simple "I can do _______" and "________" doesn't change "who I am as a Christian." They are saying they can use profanity, or watch the latest raunch fest at the theater, and that in no way affects, changes, or says anything about their Christian faith. Years ago I remember a pop starlet saying "my sexuality has nothing to do with my (Christian) faith." Taken to it's logical conclusion, it's a complete separation of behavior and "faith." What's more disturbing is that many of these people are not only making these choices themselves, but are vocally promoting what they are doing and encouraging others to do the same.
I realize that we are all sick of Christians who pass themselves off as morally pure, yet are treasuring profanity, lust, hate, violence, and addictions in secret. But can't there be some sort of balance struck here? Does loathing hypocrisy mean that we should throw aside any association of faith and behavior? Is such a thing even possible (see James 2)?
Why can't we be people who are not yet perfect (and won't be this side of heaven) but are still pressing on towards the goal (Phil 3:12)? Can we both admit sins, faults, flaws, weaknesses, but at the same time not endorse or celebrate them?
Part of my overall struggle with genuineness has always been this: The tension between passing myself off as something I'm not for the sake of self-righteous pride, or just giving in and letting my sinful flesh rule and be evident to all. Of course, the option between these two fleshly extremes is Jesus Christ. He makes me positionally righteous, gives me the Holy Spirit so I can walk by the Spirit, and if I offer my body to him as a slave to obey, He will be at work eradicating my flesh and conforming me to His image (Rom 6:12-14; 8:29).
It's time we go back to admitting we are sinners saved by grace, and that grace is designed not just to get us into heaven, or be our "faith." God's grace is designed to invade our lives and take them over, so when people see us, they don't see us, but see Jesus Christ. If Christ is our life (Col. 3:4) it is impossible for our faith and outward behavior to be kept separate.
The assertion is simple "I can do _______" and "________" doesn't change "who I am as a Christian." They are saying they can use profanity, or watch the latest raunch fest at the theater, and that in no way affects, changes, or says anything about their Christian faith. Years ago I remember a pop starlet saying "my sexuality has nothing to do with my (Christian) faith." Taken to it's logical conclusion, it's a complete separation of behavior and "faith." What's more disturbing is that many of these people are not only making these choices themselves, but are vocally promoting what they are doing and encouraging others to do the same.
I realize that we are all sick of Christians who pass themselves off as morally pure, yet are treasuring profanity, lust, hate, violence, and addictions in secret. But can't there be some sort of balance struck here? Does loathing hypocrisy mean that we should throw aside any association of faith and behavior? Is such a thing even possible (see James 2)?
Why can't we be people who are not yet perfect (and won't be this side of heaven) but are still pressing on towards the goal (Phil 3:12)? Can we both admit sins, faults, flaws, weaknesses, but at the same time not endorse or celebrate them?
Part of my overall struggle with genuineness has always been this: The tension between passing myself off as something I'm not for the sake of self-righteous pride, or just giving in and letting my sinful flesh rule and be evident to all. Of course, the option between these two fleshly extremes is Jesus Christ. He makes me positionally righteous, gives me the Holy Spirit so I can walk by the Spirit, and if I offer my body to him as a slave to obey, He will be at work eradicating my flesh and conforming me to His image (Rom 6:12-14; 8:29).
It's time we go back to admitting we are sinners saved by grace, and that grace is designed not just to get us into heaven, or be our "faith." God's grace is designed to invade our lives and take them over, so when people see us, they don't see us, but see Jesus Christ. If Christ is our life (Col. 3:4) it is impossible for our faith and outward behavior to be kept separate.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Random thought on crime dramas
I can no longer handle TV or movie crime dramas. Yes, I have a family, and I can't handle shows that feature stories about those who kill their wives, girlfriends, husbands, children, or friends. I also don't like the shows about kidnapping. I don't find these story lines entertaining in the least. The who-done-it doesn't interest me, because usually the person who did it is the most disturbing perpetrator. Of course, they always do it for some reason that is beyond comprehension, and usually they are portrayed as a mentally ill, because no one ever does anything out of evil motives, just unmedicated motives.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Randomness
Three Whys:
Why is it that people pump themselves full of expensive supplements, versus actually occasionally eating fish and frequently eating vegetables?
Why does ABC run ads for their new aliens taking over the world drama during Charlie Brown specials?
Why is a** now an acceptable word to say on TV at any time of the day on any program, except the Charlie Brown special above?
Thoughts:
I am not a Wally World fan. Not for any reason besides being time consuming and having lousy service, but boy those clearance deals. The lawn and garden seasonal clearance is crazy cheap. I got Off Insect Repellent for .25. Random, but I was excited.
If Kelli and I ever build a personal home, we need accountability partners to make sure that we don't do stupid stuff. A co-worker and I were swapping stories and laughing hysterically about people who general their own houses. By the way, I'm not talking about anyone I know personally. They've all built cool houses people would actually want to buy.
Why is it that people pump themselves full of expensive supplements, versus actually occasionally eating fish and frequently eating vegetables?
Why does ABC run ads for their new aliens taking over the world drama during Charlie Brown specials?
Why is a** now an acceptable word to say on TV at any time of the day on any program, except the Charlie Brown special above?
Thoughts:
I am not a Wally World fan. Not for any reason besides being time consuming and having lousy service, but boy those clearance deals. The lawn and garden seasonal clearance is crazy cheap. I got Off Insect Repellent for .25. Random, but I was excited.
If Kelli and I ever build a personal home, we need accountability partners to make sure that we don't do stupid stuff. A co-worker and I were swapping stories and laughing hysterically about people who general their own houses. By the way, I'm not talking about anyone I know personally. They've all built cool houses people would actually want to buy.
Questions About Current Health Care Proposals
I'm just a guy sitting in the cheap seats, but I have some questions.
What federal programs are you satisfied with? Which ones deliver what they promise, and do it at or under budget?
When you have interactions with government employees, do you believe they have your best interest at heart, or do they deliver excellent service based on your ability to go elsewhere for the good or service you are coming to them for?
Do you believe that your survival on this planet is worth a financial investment? In other words, are you willing to fork over your own money to make sure that your life is preserved?
Exactly how is it that mandating that health insurance companies do things that they don't want to do because it negatively effects their bottom line bring down health care costs? If they have to cover people who have been irresponsible about their own health care, how will health care costs come down?
What is the name of the insurance company that owns their own Federal Reserve and can print its own money? What's the name of the insurance company that can require payment with automatic withdrawal with the power to fine or imprison behind that payment collection?
Who knows more about health care? You? A doctor? An insurance executive? A congressman?
What federal programs are you satisfied with? Which ones deliver what they promise, and do it at or under budget?
When you have interactions with government employees, do you believe they have your best interest at heart, or do they deliver excellent service based on your ability to go elsewhere for the good or service you are coming to them for?
Do you believe that your survival on this planet is worth a financial investment? In other words, are you willing to fork over your own money to make sure that your life is preserved?
Exactly how is it that mandating that health insurance companies do things that they don't want to do because it negatively effects their bottom line bring down health care costs? If they have to cover people who have been irresponsible about their own health care, how will health care costs come down?
What is the name of the insurance company that owns their own Federal Reserve and can print its own money? What's the name of the insurance company that can require payment with automatic withdrawal with the power to fine or imprison behind that payment collection?
Who knows more about health care? You? A doctor? An insurance executive? A congressman?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)