1. The best positive we have right at this moment with Obama as President-elect is that for the first time in a long time we have the world's most popular man for our President. (It was either Ted Koppel or Neal Conan on NPR's Talk of the Nation that so succinctly pointed this out today.) Maybe some good can come of that, before the sharks of reality begin their circling. Hopefully inexperience isn't as much of an issue as it seemed it would be when he made his campaign-time blunders on foreign policy. I've decided that I do care what the rest of the world thinks. I work with many people from the other side of the world every day, and I respect them greatly. The parts of the world outside of our good-ol' US of A that I've been to are just fantastic (although they all are governed either a little worse than us, else terrifically worse).
(The sad subtext of this is that most of the world doesn't know that much about what Obama will mean for America, or for them for that matter. Their media is even more carefully selected for them than ours is for us. That's my experience, anyway. Bush rubbed the international media wrong from the start; a non-Bush president was going to be popular with them at first almost regardless. But some of their excitement obviously stems from good points 2 and 3 that follow.)
2. The second best positive: the rejoicing of Black America. I think that they deserve a lot of positive press for a change. I feel that I was raised without any overt racial bias, and that people of my age and younger generally bought in to the Sesame Street message and don't harbor racism at their cores. I may be a little blind to inadvertent prejudices, and living in Idaho I'm comfortably removed from real situations of racial tension, so maybe it's a little easy for me to say. Yet I'm truly hoping that there will be more healing across racial lines in other areas of the nation. Unfortunately, the economic conditions that the majority of the nation have moved into do not bode well for this to happen, though.
3. The choice of a new generation. (Even though they all see in him whatever they want, and there are political fantasies shooting up like dandelions in April.)
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Abortion==Agency and Bad Government
To Steve, my brother-in-law: It's good to hear from you. (I'm responding to Steve's comments on my previous post.) You have many deeply held views, and based on the past, it's certain that we're never going to agree 100%. Yet I think I see where your ideas come from more than you think that I do. I may not change your mind, but I feel like some of what you say deserves a response from my perspective.
It seems to me that it is an extremely tenuous position to argue that Free Agency equals allowing abortion to be sanctioned by law. It absolutely does not equal requiring it to be sanctioned by law. I defer to the article by Russell M. Ballard in October's Ensign for further support in this matter. "Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong."(Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless)
People kill adults as well, but no life-loving person would claim that the law should allow for cold-blooded murder. The insidious effects of abortion on demand stretch far beyond the choices made by the unfortunate individuals who choose to have them. In multiple dimensions. And the Pro-abortionists try to keep education shut down on what abortion entails, what its effects are, and who it effects. Not to mention that the efforts of the Pro-abortion movement really are on the other side--Satan's side--in worldwide movements away from family-oriented societies towards modern hedonism. I won't try to document this now, but it's a well-founded assertion.
Even if abortion is a tenable position for a believer in Christ's freedom to allow, it was an evil power-play when unelected Justices of the Supreme Court overturned laws all around the country by inventing a right which had nothing to do with the Constitution, and nothing to do with their role as Justices. I think that this aspect of Roe v. Wade is the least known aspect of things as they stand in the popular mind, primarily because the media and liberal education haven't educated the public on this. They've shied away from it from day one. "Constitutionality" should not be a means towards whatever end the liberals amongst society decides it desires. There is very real danger in that transition. Roe v. Wade deserves being overturned on the merits. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not dumb enough to not know that it's basis is of the shakiest type. I'll be happy to link to documents describing that if anyone is interested.
It's a fortunate fact that the nation as a whole has moved quite a way towards the pro-life position. This is why it was almost completely avoided by the Obama campaign after the primaries were won.
It seems to me that it is an extremely tenuous position to argue that Free Agency equals allowing abortion to be sanctioned by law. It absolutely does not equal requiring it to be sanctioned by law. I defer to the article by Russell M. Ballard in October's Ensign for further support in this matter. "Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth into sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong."(Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless)
People kill adults as well, but no life-loving person would claim that the law should allow for cold-blooded murder. The insidious effects of abortion on demand stretch far beyond the choices made by the unfortunate individuals who choose to have them. In multiple dimensions. And the Pro-abortionists try to keep education shut down on what abortion entails, what its effects are, and who it effects. Not to mention that the efforts of the Pro-abortion movement really are on the other side--Satan's side--in worldwide movements away from family-oriented societies towards modern hedonism. I won't try to document this now, but it's a well-founded assertion.
Even if abortion is a tenable position for a believer in Christ's freedom to allow, it was an evil power-play when unelected Justices of the Supreme Court overturned laws all around the country by inventing a right which had nothing to do with the Constitution, and nothing to do with their role as Justices. I think that this aspect of Roe v. Wade is the least known aspect of things as they stand in the popular mind, primarily because the media and liberal education haven't educated the public on this. They've shied away from it from day one. "Constitutionality" should not be a means towards whatever end the liberals amongst society decides it desires. There is very real danger in that transition. Roe v. Wade deserves being overturned on the merits. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not dumb enough to not know that it's basis is of the shakiest type. I'll be happy to link to documents describing that if anyone is interested.
It's a fortunate fact that the nation as a whole has moved quite a way towards the pro-life position. This is why it was almost completely avoided by the Obama campaign after the primaries were won.
As an appointee of Bush's Secretary of Labor to a Presidential commission I have had the opportunity to see first hand the corruption that our political system has and how it is set up for inaction. With over 50,000 lobbyists in DC its a wonder it doesn't sink into the Ocean. Republicans and Democrats are bought and sold on a daily basis by greed, power, and money.
Everyone tires of the "evils" of modern day politics. No one likes lobbyists per se. But it's also silly to think that money shouldn't play a role in politics. Of course it should. Otherwise, only raw manipulation of power does--Soviet style, or if you prefer, Gadianton style. The greed and power forces that you mention before money have a lot to do with those styles, as does money--but money can also be a force for good. I sincerely feel along with you that it would be much better if we could have shear integrity in every beating heart at every government post. We're a long, long ways from that...but compared to many other nations, it can get a lot worse from where we are. Our government is still amongst the best in the world. And money has played a healthy role in that in many ways. People being willing to spend money on their cause (and yes even business spending money on their cause) trumps no cause getting attention but the party boss' and revolutionaries' cause.
But your witness about "setup for inaction" -- there I'm with you. That's why we need a smaller executive government. But we didn't just elect a smaller-government-is-better kind of politician, so far as I hear. I suppose that's why you voted for McCain.
My main reasons for voting McCain were: Judicial restraint, respect for all human lives, a commander-in-chief that really knows war, and a chance that he'd actually clean up government a little. (I don't think the McCain-Feingold legislation helped at all, mind you. It regulates the wrong things.)
(By the way: Inaction on the congressional front can often be a good thing, although it's frustrating to all. Inaction in executive government--that partly stems from too much job security, I think. And red-tape from too much prior action by legislatures.)
RRG
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Congratulations, Obama and millions of respected but slightly misled Americans. Because you've won, I've decided to come out of the closet--to finally start a blog! This will be a political blog.
I could never vote for someone who claims that they're moderate, yet behind-the-scenes holds the most anti-life positions ever held by a mainline Presidential candidate. He doesn't have much of a Senate record, as has been established; yet perhaps his clearest record is on abortion. He's extremely pro-abortion, although you'll never hear the mainstream media say that.
He's also made it clear that he will appoint judicial activists...more of the same that have caused the catastrophic policy-grabs that our judiciary has made over the past 40 years.
Obama says that he wants to earn my respect. I sincerely hope that he means this, and that he can. If he follows all of his campaign promises, especially his pledge to NARAL-Pro-Choice America to act on their agenda as his highest priority, he'll earn my disrespect so completely, that I doubt any amount of good governing from there could earn it back.
Speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/Release101608.html
I'm hoping that this was just an example of him lying to his base, back when it was necessary to get a full endorsement from his base. Let's consider that possibility quickly. If true, then which does this tend to indicate: a) He's a new breed of politician that will overcome partisan tendencies and find a way to make everyone come together. b) He's just another politician, but in a new costume. You make your own decision.
If he does follow through on that and similar campaign promises...his mantra as a moderate is exposed as false right from the start. And we're all in worse shape as a result.
So we have to pray for a moderate Obama. I think that's where his best hopes lie. In the past few weeks, even Newsweek admitted that. Even though that would mean that Obama was not 100% truthful in campaigning, and thus in my mind has already become a typical politician. (Yet maybe we shouldn't hit the streets shouting "hypocrite"--it may not be in our interest.)
No matter what, I hope that enough of you feel the same as me to prevent your Senators, Democrats or Republicans, from passing the fierce, mean-spirited, in-your-face, euphemistically-named Freedom of Choice Act.
RRG
I could never vote for someone who claims that they're moderate, yet behind-the-scenes holds the most anti-life positions ever held by a mainline Presidential candidate. He doesn't have much of a Senate record, as has been established; yet perhaps his clearest record is on abortion. He's extremely pro-abortion, although you'll never hear the mainstream media say that.
He's also made it clear that he will appoint judicial activists...more of the same that have caused the catastrophic policy-grabs that our judiciary has made over the past 40 years.
Obama says that he wants to earn my respect. I sincerely hope that he means this, and that he can. If he follows all of his campaign promises, especially his pledge to NARAL-Pro-Choice America to act on their agenda as his highest priority, he'll earn my disrespect so completely, that I doubt any amount of good governing from there could earn it back.
Speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund on July 17, 2007, Obama said, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
http://www.nrlc.org/Election2008/Release101608.html
I'm hoping that this was just an example of him lying to his base, back when it was necessary to get a full endorsement from his base. Let's consider that possibility quickly. If true, then which does this tend to indicate: a) He's a new breed of politician that will overcome partisan tendencies and find a way to make everyone come together. b) He's just another politician, but in a new costume. You make your own decision.
If he does follow through on that and similar campaign promises...his mantra as a moderate is exposed as false right from the start. And we're all in worse shape as a result.
So we have to pray for a moderate Obama. I think that's where his best hopes lie. In the past few weeks, even Newsweek admitted that. Even though that would mean that Obama was not 100% truthful in campaigning, and thus in my mind has already become a typical politician. (Yet maybe we shouldn't hit the streets shouting "hypocrite"--it may not be in our interest.)
No matter what, I hope that enough of you feel the same as me to prevent your Senators, Democrats or Republicans, from passing the fierce, mean-spirited, in-your-face, euphemistically-named Freedom of Choice Act.
RRG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)