The Presidential Election and Connecticut’s Social Conservatives, Part 2
February 15th, 2008 by Peter
Originally, I had intended the item I posted on Nov. 28th to be FIC Blog’s only thread on the presidential election. But a lot has happened since then–and that previous thread is now up to 170 comments and counting. So I’m asking everyone to continue the conversation in this thread.
But before you do, I want to mention a few key points. First–especially if you missed the previous thread and are just entering the conversation now–go back and read my original post. Here’s some items worth repeating:
No–for those of you who have been asking–FIC will not be making an endorsement in the presidential election. Our flagship organization does not make endorsements and our PAC only endorses in state, not federal, elections.
The purpose of that post–and this one–is to have a forum in the local blogosphere where the state’s social conservatives can have a conversation among themselves about the 2008 presidential campaign:
“Fine,” I’m hearing, “but what about our fellow FIC members? Where are they?” We haven’t polled them, but I can offer some anecdotal evidence.
I can now also offer the 170 or so comments in the previous thread, which I recommend for your reading pleasure. Overall, it was very much like the sort of online conversation we had hoped to initiate among our members back when FIC Blog first installed a comments feature.
I should note, too, that in addition to those hearty souls who post comments on FIC Blog, I hear regularly from a lot of other FIC members about the campaign. A day or two after Super Tuesday–in comment #146 of the previous thread–I summed up what I was hearing in the wake of Connecticut’s own primary:
it’s been assumed by some that our membership all went for Romney or Huckabee. And they were the lead choices among our folks when I wrote the original post for this thread last November. But if the anecodotal feedback that I’m getting is any indication, FIC members who voted in Tuesday’s Republican primary voted the same as the rest of the state: most of them went for McCain, followed by Romney, then Huckabee, then Paul. Brownback’s endorsement appears to have had a bigger impact on some of our people than the displeasure of Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham or even James Dobson.
I just posted my last comment in the old thread this morning–and I will run it here to kick off the new thread. I started by quoting Trish:
Sean, Rush, Mark and Laura Ingraham did NOT endorse Mitt Romney, or even sound very supportive of his campaign until the last couple of weeks, after Giuliani withdrew from the campaign for the nomination. [emphasis added]
And then I offered my thoughts on Trish’s comment:
Trish has hit on something important which I’d like to explore further in this thread. Based on the anti-McCain sentiment in this space, I don’t expect anyone to agree with me, but I throw this thought out there for your consideration.
What strikes me about Trish’s quote above is how the talk show hosts didn’t rally to Romney until *after* Giuliani withdrew. I agree; it looks to me like talk radio expected Giuliani to be their firewall against McCain–and by the time they realized they had miscalculated and threw their support to Romney, it was too late.
But what if talk radio had been right? What if Giuliani had stopped McCain and secured the nomination? If Guiliani had instead been the victor, would the same talk radio hosts–who now make such a point out of their principled opposition to McCain–be telling pro-lifers that they need to suck it up for the good of the party?
McCain–despite the occassional odd utterance–had a solid pro-life voting record until the taxpayer-funded destruction of embryos issue arrived. Giuliani, on the other hand, was about as pro-abortion as any major candidate for the GOP nomination that we have ever seen.
I infer from all this that the other issues on which McCain departs from conservative orthodoxy–on say, immigration or McCain-Feingold–matter more to these talk show hosts than abortion. I further infer that some of the same celebrity conservatives who make such a point of their opposition to McCain because of his betrayals of the movement would have been happy to go along with the party’s nominee and to tell pro-lifers to suck it up had that nominee been the pro-abortion Giuliani.
There’s a lot more to be said on McCain and social conservatism, of course (I haven’t even mentioned his vote against the federal marriage amendment). But all of the above is something that pro-lifers ought to consider as they listen to talk radio’s opposition to McCain.
Again, that’s not any sort of a personal endorsement by me of McCain–and I could be wrong in my take on talk radio. (There was also conversation about the Democrats in the last thread–everything from the FIC member who told me she was voting for “the spirit of the late Gov. Bob Casey” to Hillary’s snub of Waterbury’s pro-life Democratic mayor.) The point is to provide a forum for Connecticut’s social conservatives to share their thoughts on the 2008 presidential election. I hope you all will now continue the conversation in this new thread.
Doug posted this respone to me in the previous thread & I’m placing it here instead. Here’s Doug:
Actually, I think I recall the talking heads frothing over Rudy’s popularity, but expressing some cautious reservation on his candidacy because of his liberal social issues, although championing him because of his 9/11 and fiscal record.
Remember, too, that when Fred Thompson entered the race, they all fawned all over him as “The Great Right Hope” until he self-destructed and returned to his lair to hibernate and catch some z’s for the rest of the winter.
Then along came Romney. It was his turn.
Now, Mitt is moot.
Everybody talked about Ronald Regan in this race, but none of the top tier candidates emulated him. Had a Reagan-like figure really been running, Rudy, Fred and Mitt would be less remembered than you, me and a dog named Boo.
Besides continually hitting “silvers,” “bronzes,” and less, Romney led in the GOP candidate polls for a brief period, but never fared well in the head to heads with Hillary. Obama wasn’t yet much a contender by that time.
The talking heads had to pick somebody.
They didn’t choose Romney.
They settled for him.
Such has been the trend for most of us throughout much of this race with the lousy hand we were dealt. We could choose varying degrees of moderates from tier one, or varying degrees of unelectables from tier two.
Looking back, I now almost wish we had a tier three as another option.
And now that the smoke is mostly cleared, our final choice seems to inevitably be between McCain on one side and Hillary or Obama on the other side.
Some choice!
The rest of the country may be willing to settle, but I’m still a Christian, a patriot, and a conservative.
When an angry Davey Crockett lost his re-election in his Tennessee district to the Congress, he said, “You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.”
George Washington put it another way: “If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God.”
Come Election Day, the GOP may all go to Hell, and I will to the Constitution Party.
Wow – does Doug have a point. How many times are conservative Christians going to be manipulated and used by the GOP establishment. I thought it was very revealing that Romney has now endorsed McCain. Soon all the conservatives will be throwing in their support, because “we can’t have that witch Hillary or the socialist Obama” in the White House. How interesting that we are always left with the proposition that we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Its called compromising. There are certain things that you don’t compromise, like your integrity, your principled stands, like human life. Either vote for a write-in candidate or dont vote at all – otherwise, you are voting for the devil disguised in the cloak of virtue.
Doug,
I agree with much of what you post about Conservatism, Congress, etc–but some of your positions I truly do NOT understand. I am thinking now of your *in effect* position that it is better to have Obama or HRC CHOOSING the next 2 or 3 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES than it would be to **accept reality** (and compromise your principles) by voting for McCain as our only *viable* option now.
BTW, you obviously do not understand me some of the time, either–which could be partially due to the limitations of trying to communicate through the use of written words, only. 🙂
But, re my comment that “It will be quite some time before I am inclined to say anything other than ‘a pox on both their houses’ regarding McCain and Huckabee.” I was NOT speaking literally, but simply trying to convey my anger and disgust with them. Just as (I hope) you were exaggerating a bit when you wrote:
“I would trust Charles Manson with a chain saw long before I would ever trust John McCain with his finger on the ‘nuke’ button.”
Tricia,
You’re right. The down side to the written word is that it does not reflect, or does not adequately reflect tone.
Regarding your “pox” remark, no, I did not believe that you genuinely wished such a travesty on McCain and Huckabee, but I did believe that you were very angry at both of them, even if your comment was only made figuratively.
Likewise, no, my “Charlie Manson/John McCain” reference was just my usual sarcastic wit and manner of illustrating a point. But all kidding aside, I really and truly would never trust Charlie with a chain saw, and likewise, I also would never trust McCain with the nuke button. To clarify, I do not put John McCain in the same mental/emotional category as Charles Manson. Obviously, they are leagues apart, but to coin the popular parlance, I do very seriously believe that McCain “has issues.”
Also, I think regarding my comment about justices, you may have misunderstood what I wrote. My meaning was that in terms of Hillary, Obama, or McCain, I would not want to see any of them choosing our next justices, but to the extent that one of them inevitably will, I would trust McCain’s judgment only very slightly more than the judgment of Hillary or Obama.
Doug
Tricia,
Just to further expound/clarify my remarks regarding the selection of justices, no, I am not, shall I say, in the “Ann Coulter camp.” By that I mean, that because I can’t have what I want, I am going to pick up my bat and ball and go home.
I think Ann’s recent announcement that she will support Hillary over McCain was done for shock and for shtick. If it wasn’t, shame on her. If it was, she’ll have a tough time later crawling out of the corner she so bombastically painted herself into.
I have heard many people on radio/TV recently make passing references in indignation about conservatives, speculating that we are holding a temper tantrum and will cut our noses to spite our faces by supposedly voting for Hillary or Obama solely because we adamantly refuse to vote for McCain. I have also heard many of these same critics chuckle and ask how we will get out of the supposed corner we have painted ourselves into.
These tunnel-visioned people only see Republicans and Democrats. For principled voters, we still have the options of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, etc.., or any number of write-in candidates. (Supposedly, the America First Party is attempting a third comeback as well, for whatever that’s worth.)
What these critics and naysayers fail to grasp is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. We do have several viable options.
Will we win? No, but let’s face it, we won’t “win” with McCain, either, regardless if he gets elected or not, but that also doesn’t mean, contrary to popular belief, that we also will sell our souls to the Democrat party.
“Conservatives” and “Republicans,” which many on the left (and even some who claim to be on the right) fail to realize, are not at all necessarily synonymous. Principled conservative voters still have choices that they can make to still fulfill their civic (and religious) duty, and without compromising their principles.
They can laugh all they like, but nevertheless, count me in that group that they deem so hilarious.
Unlike them, after I cast my vote, I’ll sleep like a baby that night.
“Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.”
“Principles have no real force except when one is well-fed.”
“The public is merely multiplied by me.”
“Always do right. That will gratify some people and astonish the rest.”
(Mark Twain)
Doug
Peter,
Wow! It’s probably a good thing you went to a “Page Two” for this thread.
I foresee us possibly breaking the 200 mark on comments!
That just goes to show that there is very much passion and emotion out there behind this issue.
Doug
Doug, my remark about Italy and Spain was in no way meant to be cryptic. I have been reading about the struggles for control in of the gov’t in both countries. I didn’t really think about the fact that maybe you haven’t so would not know what I meant. In Spain more so than Italy the Roman church is openly and heavily asserting it’s opinion on the upcoming election and telling people who they can or cannot vote for – not naming specific parties or candidates of course. Now I don’t necessarily support the other candidates but I think it is wrong for any church leader acting in his or her official capacity declaring how people should vote. What is taught in the confines of the church is one thing, and I believe absolutely that people should vote as their conscience leads which would certainly be influence by what they are taught. In Italy, the Vatican is being slightly more subtle, but when the Pope travels around the country and makes speeches specifically highlighting and in at least one case making totally absurd statements about issues that the gov’t is struggling over it can only be looked at as an attempt to influence the political atmosphere. So as not to appear that I am targeting one denomination I am just as uncomfortable with the pastors who have from the pulpit declared their support for a specific Democrat candidate. I know it may like I’m saying that the church should not have a voice but I’m not. My problem is with how it is used at times. Mixing religion and gov’t can be dangerous, one needs only to look at what has happened in the past and what a destructive influence it is in some of the Middle East countries who are controled by religious sects. It’s foolish to say it can’t happen here or it can’t happen in a predominately Christian country. It can and it has. Let the church teach it’s people and the people elect the gov’, not the other way around.
Back to the race. I’m not so sure that McCain’s judgement on the Supreme Court can be relied on by the right. As has been said here, he has already said only one term and won’t have to worry about getting any more votes. Also if he does win the credit will not go to the conservative Christian vote like it did for Bush, it will be the moderates and the liberal (if there are any) members of the GOP who get him in so if he will owe anyone it will be them. Actually I know of two liberal Republicans, the raised me. Both were absolutely loyal to the party until Reagan ran when Dad jumped ship. My mom is still active in Republican politics and she says things about the Dems that would make the far right proud! Speaking of the Dems, Doug you mention going tit for tat about the two parties. I don’t believe that I have ever shown myself to be a strong supporter of the Dems and I am certainly not on their “side”. I vote for who I feel best represents my views, I don’t care what party they are from. And even if I was a major Dem supporter I wouldn’t push that on here because that is not what I visit here for. I certainly argue about some of the issues, usually in opposition to the members of FIC but when it comes to party politics I’m no cheerleader for any of them.. Plus I imagine if I was, less of my posts would get through 🙂
I’ve read things by members of the Constition party that I whole heartedly agree with. I’ve also read things that set off alarms and red flags in my head. Are the Petroukas still involved? Because if so I can’t imagine ever supporting a candidate from the CP, though like all parties everyone doesn’t walk lock-step with the official positions. I wish there were more alternatives for all of us, the current setup is strangling the country.
David jokes that if he were a cheerleader for a party his posts might not get through. His comment reminds me: We would very much like to hear from pro-family Democrats in this space, too. I know many of FIC’s members fit the bill–I hear from you often. But we would love to have your contributions in this space as well.
David,
Don’t feel bad. I tried to respond to both your and Peter’s post in one post. Then I decided to try to separate it into two posts. As a result, I accidentally deleted the entire completed (intended) post.
OK, so here I go again.
There is a difference between interfering with government/politics and exercising free speech. The Pope does not do the former. He does the latter, and that is mostly on human rights type issues anyway, so perhaps he should continue to be vocal.
The Church really does not tell people how to vote, per se. As you cited, it does not favor specific candidates or parties. It does, however, does instruct its members in the tenets of the Church and to vote for them accordingly, as faithful members. That is the extent to the Church’s involvement with government/politics. I see no problem there. Personally, I think tax-exempt status is a farce. The churches should be taxed, and that way, they can even more openly voice their opinions. The rank hypocrisy also needs to be addressed by Democrat politicians so openly campaigning every presidential election year in southern black churches, but if a Republican tried it in a predominantly white, northern Catholic Church, he would never hear the end of it. Those politicos who preach separation of Church and state so vociferously might want to examine their own glass houses.
I also wanted to comment on a comment you recently posted in another thread, I forget where. You mentioned something about the Church being against certain groups of people. The Church is not against any person or group of people, but it may indeed be vocal in dissent about the actions or issues of a particular group. Christ calls us to evangelize. You can disagree with it all you like, but the Church has a right to express its opinions as much as anyone else, and in the end, whether you like it or not, or agree or not, it is for the benefit of the souls of whoever chooses to listen. The intention, while you may personally find it disagreeable, is benevolent in nature.
I have personally spoken with Michael Peroutka. I can tell you that on a personal level, he’s a nice guy. The Constitution Party is based on the Constitution and Judeo/Christian principles, without deference to any particular denomination. It is hard for me to see how anyone could disagree with its platform, but to each his own, I guess. Michael is or was running a self-explanatory course in Maryland called “The Institution of the Constitution.”
Like I told Trica in a previous post, from our perspective, McCain is probably a better choice for choosing justices than Obama or Hillary, but if so, only by a slim margin of difference. Suffice to say that however the election turns out, I am not at all optimistic.
Doug
Doug,
I agree – the hypocrisy is appalling with respect to churches endorsing political candidates.
The UCC effectively endorsed Obama at its General Synod, and yet so far as I’m aware the IRS has done absolutely nothing about it. The UCC selectively provided its convention facilities for Obama to speak in support of his campaign. The UCC referenced Obama’s candidacy before the speech, and Obama referenced his candidacy during the speech. He made campaign promises during the speech. Clear and deliberate campaign activity occurred in connection with his appearance and speech to the General Synod. They even had campaign tables set up, for crying out loud!
Where was the outcry from “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” (AU) on that one? Quite the contrary, they were completely OK with it – they don’t see that one as a problem. And small wonder too, since their leader Barry Lynn is a minister in the UCC.
But when ministers choose to speak out individually on behalf of a Republican candidate, in the context of a personal endorsement rather than a church endorsement, you know that AU jumps all over that and cries foul. They protest and complain when Dobson endorses. They protest and complain when any right-wing candidate is endorsed by a minister. Yet ministers have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone, as long as they are acting on their own behalf and not as an agent of their church.
IRS rules specify that when a candidate makes a church appearance, they must do so only in a non-candidate capacity. They must make no mention of their candidacy or the election. Campaign activity cannot be occurring on site in conjunction with the candidate’s appearance.
Obama broke every single one of those IRS rules. If churches are to be targeted for breaking the rules when favoring a Republican candidate, they same should apply to the Democrats. Let’s see the UCC lose its tax-exempt status. After all, it’s only fair. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Peter,
I tried three times to send a post in response to your post, but for reasons that escape me, none of them appeared to go through successfully.
To all pro-life/pro-family Democrats, I welcome you onto this blog also.
I’m too tired to list all my reasons why again.
Doug
Doug, I agree with you and Dave that is just as much of an issue when the Dems do it and to think other wise is indeed hypocritcal. Removing the tax-free status would be the best answer. Since there are many have large amounts of church owned property, and others manage to get their personal property classified as church property the added income to the states would certainly be welcome.
I was incorrect to single out the Peroutka. It was actually someone else on their website who was the first person I ever read seriously advocating a literal interpretation of the Biblical punishments that some claim are for homosexuals. In other words, capital punishment. Anyone holding that opinion would certainly not get my vote, that would be a bit suicidal eh? One can call many things Judeo/Christian principles that aren’t principled at all. As with the political interfering/free speech divide, if it is aimed at you then your perspective is going to be quite different than if is supporting something you believe.
“Christ calls us to evangelize.” Indeed, and if the Church (and I mean that as all encompassing term, not one denomination) actually did that what a different place this world could be. When one is being demonized it is difficult to see that as evangelized. My understanding of “evangelize” is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps I’m wrong.
David,
I am not sure, but regarding the Constitution Party, could you possibly be referring to Howard Phillips? He ran before Peroutka.
Judeo/Christian principles are not to be interpreted. That is moral relativism. Like I said before, it all boils down to faith.
To a degree, I can understand how you feel, as it appears to you that you, and/or your beliefs, are being targeted by the Church. My answer is twofold: 1.) See above, and 2.) the Church does not “demonize” anyone. The Church hates the sin and not the sinner and calls and welcomes all to come back to grace. It is the act, not the person being “demonized.” The institution which you may view as your enemy is more of a true friend than you may realize. Parents of today seek to be their kids’ “friend,” and in many cases, we see how that ends. A parent who disciplines his or her child may be viewed as “the bad guy,” but in fact, is sincerely acting out of love, even if it isn’t recognized or appreciated. Ditto with the Church.
I often hear gay folks commenting along the lines that they feel targeted or rejected by the Church. You can view the glass as half full or half empty. The flip side, and I believe to be the correct one, is that most people of reasonable intelligence, including you, know what the Church’s stand on these issues are. Scripture is full of such references. It is not that the Church has rejected you, but rather, that you have rejected the Church, even if you are otherwise spiritual.
Forgive the corny analogy, but I like to eat. The Church is more like an “All you can eat” type of restaurant, as opposed to a buffet. In other words, you can’t pick and choose, even though you have convinced yourself that you can. It’s an all or nothing type of deal. David, and the same scenario exists in my own faith. The term “pro-choice Catholic” is inherently an oxymoron, and those unrepentantly and permanently subscribing to it will some day suffer an eternity’s worth of indescribable anguish. In our world today, personal accountability is obsolete, and we have jerry-rigged our culture so that there is seldom if ever a “point of no return.” But the fact is, the point of no return never left. Moral relativism is like anesthesia. Just because it covers something hurtful and makes us feel better, it doesn’t mean that the hurt doesn’t otherwise still exist.
I wish you well.
Doug
David,
Post script (This getting to become my trademark!),
As you specifically cited Jesus and the Gospels, Jesus also stated in the Gospels to obey God’s Commandments (not suggestions) including not to commit adultery, which is any form of sex outside of marriage.
He even cited that anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his heart (and ditto with a man, I suppose) has committed adultery.
You can float every hypothesis imaginable as to why you believe that a breadbox is an elephant, but at the end of the day, the elephant is still an elephant and the breadbox is still a breadbox.
Doug
As an attempt to refocus this thread on the CRITICAL *issues for this nation*–regarding the Presidential election in a few months:
“Principles” are important. But if we are killed by TERRORISTS (more accurately, Islamic-fascist jihadists)–then voting in November for a liberal pacifist, or someone who *cannot get elected* (Doug, I’m NOT speaking of McCain, here), or staying home “on principle” will have all been futile.
My apologies to any who are offended by the title of this video–but I think few if any have expressed so clearly and eloquently THE STAKES of this election for America, as Mitt Romney in the below linked:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbeiRKMA9hQ&NR=1
Tricia,
Your argument has some merit, but the English political writer, Thomas Hobbes, in the 1600’s also advocated compromising our principles (and liberties) for reasons of deemed “security.” And from there, we only typically become more tolerant of more tyranny, and all in the name of “security.”
Where does one draw the line?
Benjamin Franklin, I believe, once said that he who chooses security over liberty (and I would add to that, principle), deserves neither.
The You Tube link tanked. I didn’t get to see it.
So, if I may ask, barring McCain, and anyone who presumably cannot get elected, who then are you supporting, or what are you suggesting?
Doug
Doug,
“One draws the line” to the **right** of any candidate such as Obama or HRC, who would RETREAT–“declare defeat” (in Mitt Romney’s words)–in the face of “evil extremism” in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.
Please try again to watch Mitt Romney’s (excerpts from his recent CPAC speech, with sound and accompanying photos and video) listing of *the stakes* for America in this Presidential election. I have successfully linked from my post #15 twice to watch the youtube video, so there must have been some glitch with your computer or server when you tried the link. You should at least be able to *copy* the link and paste into your web browser and view it.
Sorry I was unclear, Doug, or I may have misread what you have posted before–but I thought that *you* have been saying that if McCain is the Republican nominee then the next President will be a Democrat (or might as well be). Please DO correct me if I have misunderstood your several posts on the subject.
As for me, I will be voting (albeit reluctantly) in November for McCain, if he is the Republican nominee. Bottom line–if the alternative in the White House is Hillary or Barack–ANY Republican is hugely better on National Defense, and at least substantially better on Life and Marriage issues, Taxes, and selecting nominees for SCOTUS–which is the most important legacy of any President.
Tricia,
Yes, I did previously predict McCain as the GOP nominee and a Democrat for President.
But in your last post, you specifically said that you were not referring to McCain. Now you are saying that you are referring to McCain.
I’m confused.
Never mind the You Tube link, what are you saying?
Regarding the You Tube link, I have had this same problem with You Tube links on previous occasions as well, for whatever reason. I’m getting to the point now that I just assume not even bother with them.
Doug
Doug,
When I wrote “(Doug, I’m NOT speaking of McCain, here)” those words came *right after* the phrase “or someone who *cannot get elected*.” Thus, when I mentioned McCain in post 15 to you, it was specifically to clarify that I do not consider him “unelectable.” (Huckabee, Ron Paul, and Alan Keyes, among others, ARE “unelectable;” and I wanted to make it clear to you that I did not consider McCain part of that group.)
Again, I may have misread some of your earlier posts–but I had the impression that you basically felt that either McCain is unelectable, or no better than a very liberal Democrat (like ‘Hilbama’ as Larry Kudlow would say) in the White House.
Doug,
Since you are giving up on trying to watch the excerpts of Mitt Romney’s CPAC speech movingly set to music and photo images in my before cited youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbeiRKMA9hQ&NR=1 (It is called “Romney 2012— “Bring America Back”)
I will mention here just a couple of Romney’s vivid descriptions of the STAKES in this Presidential election (in his stirring speech at CPAC):
“The BEST ALLY of PEACE is a STRONG AMERICA!!”
“We *cannot allow* the next President of the United States to *retreat* in the face of EVIL EXTREMISM!”
“America must remain–as it has always been–the hope of the EARTH.”
This is why we must NOT have “Hillbama” in the White House.
In the speech Romney also spoke of “Divine Providence,” and said: “A Nation built on Principles of the Founding Fathers cannot long stand when its *children are raised without fathers in the home!”*
One of my other favorite parts was his fervent declaration that “Dependency is DEATH to initiative, to risk-taking, to opportunity. Dependency is *culture killing!* Dependency is a DRUG!! We’ve got to FIGHT it!”
That’s another vivid stake we have as Americans, and as supporters of the values of faith, family and freedoms.
HRC and Obama are BOTH *all about* promoting “DEPENDENCY” upon the federal government as **everyone’s DADDY!!**
In my view, either of them as POTUS–if they do even half, or a third, of what they have promised, will cannibalize the STRENGTH of our Nation, in EVERY way possible. IMO, either Hillary or Obama could easily set the United States on a path, perhaps irreversible (with activist SCOTUS appointments, etc.), to become *just a shadow* of its former greatness.
For those and other reasons, Doug, (as I have stated before) I will be voting for McCain in November (presuming he is the Republican nominee).
Those who read this blog regularly may recall earlier postings that called into question the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s appearance at last year’s UCC General Synod in Hartford, as it relates to IRS rules on prohibited activities for tax-exempt churches.
It is no surprise that this pro-LGBT church flouted the law, as it has demonstrated an increasing propensity for political activism from year to year – radically changing its character from the faith once held by colonial Puritans, and creating instead a humanistic theology of moral relativism.
Consequently it is with some satisfaction – albeit bittersweet – that we observe the IRS finally taking the UCC to task for their offenses in this matter. We know that they would have quickly condemned similar actions by other churches if they were in support of conservative politicians, as they have done repeatedly through satellite organizations – like “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” (AU), which is led by UCC minister Rev. Barry W. Lynn. It seems they are now learning that justice is a two-edged sword.
The Associated Press is reporting today that the IRS issued a letter to announce that it formally investigating these apparent tax-law violations by the UCC in relation to Barack Obama’s appearance. At the very least they should be penalized with additional taxes under Section 4955, if not denied tax-exempt status altogether under 501(c)(3). It will be interesting to watch this story unfold, and to gauge its ultimate impact to both the UCC and Obama’s candidacy.
Dave,
On the February 29th edition of Courant.com, an op-ed piece chastises the IRS for picking on (my words) the UCC church involved for letting Obama speak and do his politicking there.
Of course, the piece also claims the IRS is going overboard, the church was not at fault, and the timing of the charge is suspicious.
Why am I not surprised?
Doug
Questions:
1) Will McCain’s recent weak response to Hagee’s bigoted statements about Jews and Catholic loses him a significant number votes in November?
2) Will his claims that Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide” help him win over more of the conservative Christian voters. Or maybe the question is will it bring enough of them to his side to make up for the number of moderate voters who could very well bolt if they take a good look at Parsley.
3) Now that McCain looks to be the man who will run in November, what thoughts do you have on VPs
4) Will the Dems destroy their chances of winning with this extended battle for delegates?