Is God a Republican or a Democrat?

In case anyone had not noticed, the Bible makes no reference to the Republican or Democratic parties. The answer to whether God wants you to be a Democrat or a Republican can be summed up by one verse in the book of Joshua. While standing outside of Jericho, Joshua had a visitation from what can best be described as Jesus in the Old Testament. In the fifth chapter, verses 13 and 14 read as follows:
And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant.
In this passage, Joshua asks Christ the same question many are asking today. The Republicans will claim God is on their side, and some Democrats will claim God is on their side, but the answer is NAY. The real question is not which party God affiliates himself with, because as it is later stated, God is no respect of faces (he does not value one above another), but what party affiliates itself with God. Unfortunately, neither party can claim that they support God fully, and for this reason, it comes down to individuals, not parties. There are many aspects of the Political process that leave God out all together. The slander, mud slinging, back door dealings, and corruption that has become common in the political realm leave one dazed. This is simply more evidence that each candidate should be looked at on his or her merits, and personal position on each issue, not the letter listed beside their name. In many respects, George Washington was wise beyond his days when he suggested that there be no political parties, just individual candidates. This is how God views politics, he looks into the heart of the individual, not their party. However, can it be said that during any one point in history one party is closer to the path of God? Certainly God was not in favor of slavery, and in the same respect, he does not favor Gay Marriage or Abortion, so there is some merit to this point. All in all, I would have to say that God is not in favor of either party, and as I stated earlier, the question is, which party is in favor of God. From the looks of things, maybe God will abstain this time around
Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

How do you spell evil? A.C.L.U.

The American Civil Liberties Union; based on the name, it sounds like a wonderful organization created to protect the rights of all Americans. However, when you read a comment from the organization's founder regarding its purpose, the truth becomes a bit clearer. When asked about his goals for the organization, and its impact on the United States, founder Roger Baldwin had the following comments: "I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” Communism? It is a bit confusing that the founder equates the protection of Civil Liberties with a final goal of Communism., but to process this information, we should define Communism. Communism is defined by Webster's dictionary as: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Totalitarian....protection of Civil Liberties? Something does not add up, but can we equate the fact that the organization's name is deceiving to the assumption that it is evil? Probably not, but we can look a little deeper into the actions of the ACLU to determine if it is inherently evil. Just like a man, an organization can be judged by its works. First, let us see what Webster's has to say about the term evil. The term is defined as wicked, morally reprehensible, deceiving, harmful actions arising from bad character, or the absence of good (God), or the allowing of evil actions. Well, with its name alone, the ACLU has already hit one of the characteristics of evil, but let's dig a bit deeper. The first characteristic of evil listed is morally reprehensible actions, so we must determine if the ACLU fits into this category. It does not take long to find that the ACLU is a constant defender of actions that the majority of the population consider morally reprehensible. A look at some of the organization's policies discovered the following facts: the ACLU supports the legalization of prostitution (Policy 211); the defense of all pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4); the decriminalization and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210); the promotion (not protection) of homosexuality (Policy 264); and the opposition of the rating of music and movies (Policy 18). To stress what I see as the worst of these policies, the ACLU has defended the NAMBLA organization on various occassions. As with the ACLU, much can be learned about NAMBLA by its name alone. The letters stand for: NAtional Man-Boy Love Association, and the organization's main goal is the promotion of sexual relationships between grown men and children, in this case little boys. This definitely fits into the definition of evil, and by supporting such an organization, the ACLU is guilty. If this is not enough evidence to support the idea that the ACLU is evil, let's look a little deeper. Another hallmark of evil is the presence of harmful actions that arise from a lack of character. Returning to the ACLU's stated policies, we find that they also support the opposition of parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262); the opposition of informed consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263); and the opposition of spousal consent preceding abortion (Policy 262). If it is a pro-abortion measure, the ACLU supports it. In fact, the organization is the nation's leading proponent of unfettered abortion at any point of pregnancy. They must be proud. Still not enough evidence, how about this. The ACLU is pro-death. As a matter of fact, the ACLU has fought against the free speech rights of those that oppose both abortion and euthanasia. As long as its pro-death you can count on the ACLU to support it, unless of course it is a convicted criminal; in this case they are against death. This could go on and on, but there is one last bit of evidence I would like to examine. The definition of evil, at it's root, is the absence of good, or the absence of God. As an organization, no one has done more to make the absence of all things Godly a reality in the United States than the ACLU. In short, the ACLU is anti-Christian. The list is endless on this one. Under the guise of “seperation of Church and State”, the ACLU have made a name for themselves by being rabidly anti-Christian. This is one area where they are the most hypocritical. They oppose tax exemptions for all churches, but fight for them for Wiccans. They are against Christianity in school, but oddly remain silent as our children are taught to be Muslims. Whether its baby Jesus, the ten commandments, or tiny crosses on county seals, the ACLU will be there to secularize America, and rewrite our history. In summation, is the ACLU evil? Yes.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture

The Future of the Courts

From the mouth of a well known Officer in the Secular Progressive Militia, Chuck Schumer, another battle in the Culture War is brought to light. In a recent interview, after stating that the biggest mistake made by the Senate was allowing the appointment of Justice Alito, Schumer had these thoughts, “Judges are the most important, one more justice would have made it a 5-4 conservative, hard-right majority for a long time. That won’t happen.” From now on, all the President’s judicial appointments will need to meet the requirements of Mr. Schumer, and that is just how he likes it. So, what about Alito disturbs Schumer so much? From the quote above, it is clear that Schumer believes that Alito is a conservative, and in the mind of a Secular Progressive like Schumer, this is a character flaw that cannot be forgiven. In a news conference given by Schumer, in response to the nomination of Alito by the Whitehouse, he made it clear that he whole heartedly opposed Alito, and he even used a fear laced message to hammer home his beliefs. This is, of course, a favorite among Secular Progressive techniques. If you scare them, they will come. Speaking on the matter, Schumer compared Alito to the great civil rights warrior, Rosa Parks, in the following manner: "Like Rosa Parks, Judge Alito will be able to change history by virtue of where he sits. The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place. Judge Alito's visit to Rosa Parks this morning was appropriate. His record, as I'm sure Rosa Parks would agree, is much more important." So, what is the senator implying? Will Alito completely repeal the work of the Civil Rights Leaders of the past? Will the Voting Rights Act be struck down by this demonic judge to be? Not so fast. In another Secular Progressive move, Schumer compared an issue that is important to him to minority rights in an effort to scare minorities into a frenzy. What is this issue that is so important to Schumer? A look at the questions he constantly posed to Alito during the confirmation process makes it clear, it is abortion. So, was this the last statement made by Schumer to create fear in the streets? He went on to state that "this is a nominee who could shift the balance of the court, and thus the laws of the nation, for decades to come." To finish off his opinion on the matter, Schumer stated this; "As for Judge Alito, there is still a lot to be learned about him. Many of the opinions that he has written over the last 15 years cast real doubt on whether he can be a fair, mainstream, albeit conservative, judge who strives to protect the rights of all Americans...". Mainstream? My only question for Mr. Schumer would be, is partial birth abortion mainstream? I would guess that if it were voted upon by the public, the outcome would not result in the procedure becoming mainstream, so, is Schumer, who wants this procedure to be legal, mainstream? It is relatively clear by the statements of the Congressman that he is in the Secular Progressive Army, and while Alito, a pro-life judge, was confirmed, it could be a while before another pro-life judge becomes part of the high court. As Schumer stated, "Judges are the most important," because they have the power to legislate from the bench. This allows them to go around public opinion, thus, the majority no longer rules. In the eyes of an out numbered group, such as the Secular Progressives, being able to change the country against the will of the silent majority is, in a word, priceless.


Christianity
Politics
Society
Culture