Did the RUD Voters Break the Law?

This case was also covered by the same author in Woodlands-RUD-voter-fraud-conviction
For an overview of this case, watch Dirty Judge Reiter and the Long Knives

Did the RUD voters break the law? Let's take a look at the law on residency and how it has been interpreted by Texas courts when they have been asked to do so.

The Texas election code specifies the following requirements for eligibility to vote:
    Sec. 11.001. ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE. (a) Except as otherwise provided by law, to be eligible to vote in an election in this state,
    a person must:

(1) be a qualified voter as defined by Section 11.002 on the day the person offers to vote;
(2) be a resident of the territory covered by the election for the office or measure on which the person desires to vote; and
(3) satisfy all other requirements for voting prescribed by law for the particular election.

In Sec 11.002 it further defines a qualified voter as:
   Sec. 11.002. QUALIFIED VOTER. (a) In this code, "qualified voter" means a person who:

(1) is 18 years of age or older;
(2) is a United States citizen;
(3) is not mentally incompetent
(4) has not been finally convicted of a felony
(5) is a resident of this state; and
(6) is a registered voter.

No one disputes that Adrian met all the requirements to be a “qualified voter’ as it is statutorily defined. The dispute centers over the second requirement of Sec 11.001 – that of being a resident of the territory covered by the election. So let’s look more closely at the statutory definition of residency. Residency is defined as follows in the election code:
   Sec. 1.015. RESIDENCE. (a) In this code, "residence" means domicile, that is, one's home and fixed place of habitation to which
   one intends to return after any temporary absence.

(b) Residence shall be determined in accordance with the common-law rules, as enunciated by the courts of this state, except as otherwise provided by this code.
(c) A person does not lose the person's residence by leaving the person's home to go to another place for temporary purposes only.
(d) A person does not acquire a residence in a place to which the person has come for temporary purposes only and without the intention of making that place the person's home.
(e) A person who is an inmate in a penal institution or who is an involuntary inmate in a hospital or eleemosynary institution does not, while an inmate, acquire residence at the place where the institution is located.

To define “residence” as one’s home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence sounds pretty straightforward – until one begins to think of all the possibilities that this definition must cover.

For example, what if I own two homes in the state and spend time in both of them? What if I rent two homes in different parts of the county and spend time in both of them? What if I rent one home and own another home in the same county and spend time in both of them with no intent to divest either? What about college students living in dorms during the school year but coming to their parent’s residence on weekends or holidays? What if someone doesn’t own or rent any home in the county (or anywhere else) but sleeps between the air conditioner and the building it conditions, as one man does where our church meets, and spends his days roaming downtown Conroe? What is his residence – where he sleeps or where he spends the day? Is the homeless man disenfranchised because he doesn’t own or rent any property? How does a resident determine between two or more homes which one is his residence for voting purposes? Is it the one at which he spends more time, on average? Is it the one at which he presently spends very little time, but to which he hopes to retire one day? Is it the house he recently bought right next to work and where he stays Monday through Thursday night or is it the one he has owned for a long time, where he spends Friday night through Sunday night, and to which he intends to live full time some time? Is it the one that is owned instead of rented? Is the college student’s residence the dorm or their parent’s house?

These sorts of questions are why the law goes on to provide further clarification on how one’s residence is to be determined. The second paragraph of the statutory definition of residence in Sec 1.015 states that “Residence shall be determined in accordance with the common-law rules, as enunciated by the courts of this state, except as otherwise provided by this code.”

Although most people quickly form opinions about what home should be the “residence” for voting purposes, the opinion of the “third party man on the street” is not a component of the statutory definition of residence. The meaning of residence is to be determined by the common law rules as enunciated by the courts of this state. What are the common law rules on residency as enunciated by this state?

One place to start is the formal legal opinion on this question issued by Gov. Abbot when he was Attorney General. He writes in Opinion No. GA-0141 issued February 4, 2004:

In the leading Texas Supreme Court case of Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1964), the court declared that the meaning of the term “residence” for voting purposes “depends upon the circumstances surrounding the person involved and largely depends upon the present intention of the individual. Volition, intention and action are all elements to be considered in determining where a person resides and such elements are equally pertinent in denoting the permanent residence or domicile. . . Neither bodily presence alone nor intention alone will suffice to create the residence, but when the two coincide at that moment the residence is fixed and determined.” There is no specific length of time for the bodily presence to continue.

The fact that, under Texas law, residence is determined by the coincidence of bodily presence and the voter’s intention seems absurd to most reasonably intelligent people. But that is how courts have consistently ruled when asked to define residence. Abbot summarizes this in his own words, saying:

Under current law, the determination regarding “residence” thus involves both physical presence and current intention of the applicant;
For example, let us assume that two students, Student A and Student B, live in the same college dormitory. Student A, who is living in the dormitory and is therefore physically present for purposes of voter registration yet intends his residence to remain the same as that of his parents, can permissibly register to vote in the county of his parent’s residence. … On the other hand, Student B, who is living in the same dormitory as Student A yet who intends that the dormitory be his residence for purposes of voter registration, can permissibly register to vote in the county where his dormitory is located.

Quoting from another court case , Abbot’s formal legal opinion goes on to acknowledge that while the Registrar of Voters does have statutory authority under the Election Code to make factual determinations of whether voter applicants are bona fide residents of the county, they were prohibited from determining applicants were not residents of the county for any of the following reasons:

A. That such person resides in a dormitory at Prairie View A&M University;
B. That such person owns no property in Waller County;
C. That such person is a student at Prairie View University;
D. That such applicant has no employment or promise of employment in Waller County;
E. That such applicant previously lived outside Waller County, or may live outside Waller County after his graduation;
F. That such person visits the home of his parents, or some other place during holidays and school vacations.

Gov. Abbot concludes his formal legal opinion with the statement that “The intention of the voter registration applicant is crucial to a proper determination of residence, and every person is strongly presumed to have ‘the right and privilege of fixing his residence according to his own desires.’”

Although the opinion of the “third party man on the street” is not a component of the statutory definition of residence, it does figure prominently in the jury box. As district attorneys like to remind us, they can indict a ham sandwich. They can do so by controlling the flow of information to the grand jury. In the same way, by preventing this information from effectively getting to the jury and depending on the natural inclination of the man-on-the-street to rely on their commonsense opinion of how “residence” is to be defined, prosecuting attorney Mr. Glickler, with the cooperation of the judge, was easily able to get a conviction.

A few weeks before the AG issued this legal opinion, the Texas Secretary of State had also delivered a legal opinion to the governor on this identical question (Election Law Opinion GSC –1, January 22, 2004). The Secretary of State (SOS) is authorized by statute to obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation, and interpretation of the election code. He is required to do this by preparing detailed and comprehensive written directives and instructions relating to this code. His written interpretation of election law carries statutory weight. Obviously he can’t contradict election law, but where there is ambiguity, his understanding is the operative understanding of the code and case law.

The question the SOS was asked by the governor was, “What is the proper interpretation and application of Section 1.015 of the Code in the context of voter registration by, and “residency” of college students, …” The SOS reached the same conclusion as the AG.

His short answer is, “The definition of residence for the purpose of voter registration is well settled in Texas.” He then goes on to provide the same answer as the AG gave, drawing from some of the same case laws and a number of additional ones. After noting that residency can’t be determined by any one factor, he states,

“The majority of Texas courts have consistently ruled that residency is a combination of intention and fact, and that the voter’s intention must be reviewed to make a final determination of residence.”

A couple of other relevant statements from that opinion are:

“…we caution other officials and those conducting voter registration drives against seeking to influence the voter’s choice of a residence address. The presumption is not in favor of the parents’ home or the college home; rather, the presumption is in favor of the voter’s own assessment of the facts and his or her intent.”
“In sum, when a student registers to vote and describes his or her permanent residence in Texas for voting purposes, the presumption is in favor of the voter’s factual statement on the face of the application.”
“We note that a common complaint about students and other voters who travel is the concern that these voters will not consider the residence location on the application to be their home in the future (e.g., five years from the application date). No applicant is required to assert such a future durational intention when registering to vote. … An applicant filling out a Texas voter registration form is not required to state that the residence will be his or her home forever, or for the next five years, or even the next year.”

According to both the SOS and the AG, it is well settled that there is no need for the voter to intend to remain at the residence for any specific duration into the future and there is no duration for which a prospective voter must have resided at the residence in the past in order for that residence to qualify as the voting residence. A residence becomes the voting residence once there is bodily presence coupled with an intent to return, if absent.

Mr. Glickler argued that these principles only applied to college students and RV'ers. But that is contrary to the explicit statements in the SOS’s legal opinion. The principles apply equally to all people. There isn’t a separate principle for determining residence for college students and RV'ers from any other prospective voter. In his formal opinion, the Texas Secretary of State wrote:

No more or less can be required of college students during the voter registration process than any other Texas voter. These principles apply equally to college students as well as other voters, and no more can be required of them in order for them to register and vote in the State of Texas.

But the evidence in support of Adrian doesn’t stop here.

Adrian had several discussions with Joseph Kulhavy, who at the time was the elections attorney for the SOS, about election law and the definition of voter residence. Adrian relied on what he learned in these conversations in acquiring a second residence inside the RUD and voting in the 2010 election. In a conversation a couple of years after the election and civil trial that overturned the election results because the voters who voted against the incumbents were “fraudulent voters”, Mr. Kulhavy characterized the whole affair as “Dirty judge, dirty developer, dirty everybody,…” In fuller context his comments were:

“The decision [i.e. P.K. Reiter decision in the civil case on the RUD election] was contrary to decades of court decisions about residency issues and was really an outlier.”

“The way I read it was, Developer is mad that their nose has been tweaked by some people who were protesting the profoundly undemocratic way that property taxes are imposed in Texas, and their embarrassment is such … that they call up their best buddy, someone who has close political ties to them and say, hey Judge, we need you to make an example of these people.”

“Utterly politically motivated, intellectually bankrupt decision that could not be reconciled with the way we generally view residence. What is it about you that they would say, “When he says that’s his residence he is just lying? Excuse me! To accuse someone of fraud goes beyond saying they just misunderstood or that there has been some confusion on the law. Most prosecutors won’t touch a residency dispute with a 10 foot pole because they know that they will lose.”

“So to go so far in a civil case …[in] throwing out the election, (and excuse me, isn’t there a presumption in favor of a valid election and upholding the election results)… there would need to be extraordinary facts…..”

“Voters [in the RUD] are presumptively not eligible unless they have been vetted by the developer, given the OK, the secret handshake. [That’s] the snotty arrogance of the decision that bothered me so much.”

“Dirty Judge, dirty developer, dirty everybody, If you’re that scared, if you create such a powerful incentive to run a dirty election, then you should ask why are you developing that land that way in the first place?”

So the RUD voters have Texas case law on their side, they have the then sitting election attorney for the Secretary of State at the time calling the civil ruling that found the voters were fraudulent “a politically driven, intellectually bankrupt ruling, that trampled decades of election case law” and calling the judge who made the ruling a “dirty judge,” and they have a number of upstanding citizens in the community (some 300 apparently) who signed a petition calling for his pardon and release.

But even if all these people are wrong, there is still one insurmountable fact of law in light of which Adrian should have been found not guilty. That fact is “mistake of law.”
Adrian believed he was a lawfully qualified voter in that 2010 RUD election because:

The Texas SOS attorney for elections thought he could do what he did.
The legal opinions of the AG and SOS assert he could do what he did.
The Woodlands developers did what he did - moved 3 people into the RUD to vote in the first RUD election in 1990.
Other developers routinely did and still do the same thing.
Dirk and Kate Laukien, the people who own the building in which the RUD board used to meet, did the exact same thing – changed their voting residence to a commercial building in the RUD (and it was not even built or intended to be used as a residence unlike the Residence Inn) to vote in the same RUD election.

I would submit that is more than enough evidence for someone to reasonably believe that what they are doing is lawful.
In reaching that opinion, Adrian relied on an interpretation of the law given by two agencies that are responsible for administering or enforcing the law and an attorney responsible for interpreting election law. That should qualify for a mistake of law defense by itself. But making the case even stronger is that knowledge of the law is an element of the crime itself. To commit the crime of illegal voting, the voter must vote in an election in which the voter knows he is not eligible to vote.

If Adrian sincerely believed he was eligible to vote in the election and had good basis for the belief he was eligible, e.g. such as seeking the advice of the Texas elections attorney, then even if he is wrong about his belief, he doesn’t meet the elements of the crime which requires knowingly voting in an election in which one is not entitled to vote. This is a significant element not present is many other common felonies. Felony theft does not require the thief to “know” that he is committing burglary; he just has to intend to remove the property from the inhabited premises. That intent is proven by his action of removing the property from the premises.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t agree with this law and I don’t like this law. I think there should be a residency duration requirements to be eligible to vote and that one should have to own property in the district to be eligible to vote in that district. But that is not the law. The law says there is no duration of residency either before or after registration to be a qualified voter. I do believe in the rule of law. If the RUD board didn’t like the law, they should work to change it, not use the law to their own advantage and prosecute other people who use it to their (i.e. the RUD's) disadvantage.

Also in the interest of full disclosure, I know Adrian and some of the other 10 voters, two of whom were my sons. Further in the interest of full disclosure, the polical forces driving this prosecution should be noted. After the county district attorney declined to proseute on the grounds that no law had been broken, this case would never have been criminally prosecuted without Texas State Senator Tommy Williams' personal involvement advocating prosecution by the Texas Attorney General's office. As usual, just follow the money.

Covenanted Christian Voting

• Do you believe God has given us commandments and principles concerning voting in the Bible?
• Are you committed to obeying those commands regarding voting?
• Do you believe we should obey God and leave the consequences of our obedience to him?
• Do you choose candidates first on Biblical principles and only secondarily on pragmatic concerns?
• Do you believe the Bible provides qualifications for civil rulers?
• Would you like to see the church of Jesus Christ speak with one voice?

If so, then you may be interested in covenanting together with us to vote in unison for a qualified candidate.

A Biblically Qualified Candidate
We believe the following scriptures, among others, provide qualifications for civil rulers. Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 16:18-19, Deuteronomy 17:15-19, and Proverbs 31:4-5.
Exodus 18:21 requires civil rulers to be able or capable men of truth who fear God and hate covetousness.
Deuteronomy 16:18-19 requires that a civil ruler judge justly and not take bribes or be a respecter of persons.
Deuteronomy 17:15-19 requires that civil rulers be natural born citizens and be knowledgeable concerning the law of God. It forbids them from multiplying horses.
Proverbs 31:4-5 teaches us that wine and strong drink are not for civil magistrates.From these passages we can form a composite picture of a qualified candidate:

1. A civil ruler should be a male born in this country.
2. A civil ruler should have a basic understanding of law of God and the US Constitution. While many evils in our land can’t be eradicated in one term, his solutions should apply Biblical wisdom so as to bring the wheel over more evil and increase the number of well doers who are encouraged and rewarded consistent with enumerated powers in the Constitution.
3. A civil ruler should speak the truth. This means he will call abortion and unjust war, murder; homosexual fornication, sin, and fractional reserve banking and tax based welfare, theft. It also means he will warn the people that the practice of these sins will bring God’s wrath on the land.
4. A civil ruler must be capable, having demonstrated the ability to successfully rule one or more organizations.
5. A qualified candidate will not be without weaknesses. David, Hezekiah, and Josiah are all called good kings by God. Yet significant sins are recorded of each of them.

Issues for the 2012 Elections
The following issues are deemed to be significant issues of the day and will be used as the criteria for evaluation of candidates.
Abortion – must believe that anything done with the intent to kill an unborn baby is murder. Acceptable solutions would include removing state abortion laws from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
Wars of Aggression – must recognize foreign dominion as a sign of judgment and seek to extricate the US from all treaties that cede authority over the US to any party other than duly elected officers in offices established by the Constitution and under oath to uphold the Constitution.  Should seek to end all foreign wars of aggression, collapse the US Empire, and bring US soldiers home.
Federal Reserve – must understand the threat this corporation poses to our well-being and seek to revoke their charter, including any intermediate steps to reduce their power and obscurity.
Federal Spending – must have a plan to balance the Federal budget within his first term and eliminate Federal departments that are not authorized by the Constitution (e.g. Education, Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation). Must recognize existing tax rates are too high.
Homosexual fornication – must believe homosexual fornication to be heinous sin and seek to criminalize this activity wherever the federal government has Constitutional jurisdiction – i.e. armed forces, Washington, DC.
Constitution – must believe the constitution to be the law of the land and be committed to rescinding all existing legislation and vetoing all new legislation in violation of this law.

Party vs. Covenanted Voters
The big difference between this concept and a party is how a person becomes a candidate. With a party a person declares himself a candidate and then tries to accumulate money, often prostituting himself in the process. The candidate then persuades people to vote for him. With covenanted voters, the people persuade a person to be a candidate. The candidate does not need to raise money, because he is not trying to persuade anyone to vote for him. He can spend his time developing real solutions to the problems that face the nation and using whatever stumping opportunities are given to him to present these ideas. Any resources to get someone elected are spent directly by the people who are seeking to elect the candidate.

The goal is not to debate who is the "best" possible candidate. The goal is to find a candidate who meets the prescribed qualifications and is willing to accept the responsibility of ruling. Any candidate, meeting the legal requirements for office, for whom people are able to vote is electable. Whether or not the majority of people in a wicked land would ever be willing to vote for such a person is really irrelevant to our duty of choosing qualified men to rule.
This approach allows a candidate to obey the injunction in Deuteronomy 17:17 (“…neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.”) against accumulating money. It would seem this principle is violated when the first action a candidate takes is to raise as much money as possible.
It is expected people in each state will use their write-in process to get their write in votes counted. In most cases, these are quite simple. In Texas for example, it only takes 34 signatures to get on the write-in ballot. In North Dakota, only three and the filing deadline is mid-October. See the (http://writein2008.blogspot.com/) for details on individual state laws.

Wooden Ballot box used in the northeast US c1870

Thoughts?

Truth From Russia? On Pragmatic Voting?

Why post a Russian's observations on this year's American presidential election? Because sometimes what's not so obvious to those of us in the middle of something is to those looking on from outside:

"And so we come to the case of the actual elections, or rather the mock elections. Once more, as has been the road show every 4 years for the past 24 years, Americans are given the choice between two muppet clones, presented to them by the two wings (Democrats and Republicans) of the One American Party of Oligarchs.
This year, more so than any other year, the two candidates have never been so much alike. In truth, what is the difference between the Muslim half Arab and the Mormon? Nothing. Both are war mongering socialists, running a bankrupt gangster war state. Both hold real Christianity in contempt at best and outright hostility at worst. Both are happy to promote filth and homosexuality to destroy what little Christianity is left in America and export this evil. Both are quite happy to empower one Islamic regime after another to murder Christians.
What is the difference that would make Americans ready to fight each other in the elections? Ready to beat each other's faces in? What? Why simply one has a D and the other an R and we all know that for bread and circuses to work, the circus has to be filled with blood." - Stanislav Mishin, August 12, 2012

Taking America back, Turning this country around, and whatever else conservatives are hoping to do in this election won't happen by voting for the "lesser of two evils" or by the victory of one socialist over another socialist, or even by the victory of a capitalist over a socialist. The liberty that conservatives are seeking to restore flows from obedience to King Jesus and his Word.  Far more important than whether a particular party wins is whether your vote for a particular candidate is obedient to scripture.  Far more significant as an indicator of progress is how many people obey scripture and remove their children from the idolatrous government school than how many people are voting for Romney. Far more important in restoring political liberty is how many Christians in the jury box obey God rather than men and refuse to convict people who have done no wrong.

Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than removing Obama, and to hearken than a Republican senate.

Political Corruption Blown Away (1946)

Political corruption is, of course, not new. The difference between today and previous generations is how it was dealt with.

Should a Christian Vote for Dr. Ron Paul?

The answer to this question rides on whether or not he meets the biblical qualifications for civil office. If he does meet them, then we may vote for him. If he doesn’t meet them, then we should not vote for him. To do so would be to choose a man who is not included in the group from whom God has commanded us to choose our civil magistrates. There are a number of passages that address the necessary qualifications for civil magistrates. A set of passages that provide a relatively complete sample of the qualifications would be Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 16:18-19, Deuteronomy 17:15-19, and Proverbs 31:4-5.

From Exodus 18:21 we learn that they must be able men of truth who fear God and hate covetousness. Dr. Paul obviously satisfies the requirement to be male. More importantly, he is a man of truth. He has spoken the truth about the Federal Reserve far longer than many Christians. R. J. Rushdoony is probably one of the first Christians in modern times to publish criticism of the Federal Reserve. But as a federal congressman in the early 1970’s Dr. Paul was not far behind. He understands and boldly proclaims the immorality of fraudulent money, deficit spending, unjust war, and abortion. He proclaims in word and deed that life begins at conception. He has done so from the very beginning of his practice over 40 years ago. A couple of years ago the wife of one of his early partners told me that Dr. Paul told her husband on his first day, “There were two things we do not do in this practice – We do not perform abortions and we do not accept government money.” That was spoken in a day when many reformed Christians did not fully grasp the nature of abortion. Likewise in the area of unjust war, he has been a consistent voice of truth, calling Americans, even many Christians, to reconsider their support for wars in which we have no Biblically valid basis for participation. On the flip side there are areas where Dr. Paul’s testimony is not a clear as I would like, e.g. the use of “the pill” and the proper application of the Old Testament penal code today. This shows up especially when he deals with crimes of adultery, sodomy, or murder. However, even in these weak areas, he is not far from the truth in that he does not condone or support the practice of sodomy.

Dr. Paul is able. He has been tested more than any other current candidate, other than possibly Newt Gingrich. He was not only willing to speak honestly about the mess our nation is in when few others had the courage to speak truthfully about the seriousness of the crises we are facing, but he also published solutions to the problems facing our nation that are real, detailed, and achievable. Few others can even articulate specific and detailed solutions, let alone develop an achievable plan to address them. Dr. Paul actually understands the economic principles behind the solutions he is touting.

Dr. Paul is a man who fears God. Proverbs equates the fear of God with hating and departing from evil. (Proverbs 8:13, 16:6) His life evidences a carefulness not to do unrighteousness. Even his biggest detractors have to acknowledge that Dr. Paul is a man of impeccable character. He has remained faithful to one wife for over 50 years. With over 30 years in office, how many scandals of any kind have been alleged by anyone? All of his 5 children respect and honor him – which is more than can be said of even President Reagan. Some have even followed in his footsteps as an OB/GYN doctor – a testimony to his character in the home as a father. The fact that Dr. Paul hates covetousness is clearly evidenced by the fact that he returns excess money to Congress that was not needed for running his office. He does not covetously search for ways to spend this money simply because he has it to spend. This is not a publicity stunt; he has been doing this for decades, long before he was considered anything more than an eccentric crank.

Deuteronomy 16:18-19 adds the requirement that a civil ruler judge justly and not take bribes or be a respecter of persons. Again Dr. Paul meets this requirements. Lobbyists don’t even bother taking him to lunch. They know he cannot be bought. He does not change his ideas to win endorsements and will even call out fellow republicans where they need to be called out. Because of his unwillingness to go along to get along, the republican party in his own state was unwilling to announce his name and allow him to join the rest of the Texas republican congressional delegation on the stage at a recent state convention. How many other candidates are that principled when it comes to getting party recognition?

Deuteronomy 17:15-19 adds the requirement that civil magistrates be natural born citizens which Dr. Paul is. It also forbids them from multiplying horses – a qualification Dr. Paul, with his plan to close many overseas bases and bring our troops home, uniquely meets.

This passage commands the civil magistrate to have and read a copy of the law of God. Dr. Paul has shown that he has a knowledge of the word of God. He recently gave an address in which he not only quoted at length from scripture (1 Samuel 8), but he also properly explained the passage at some length. It wasn’t a passing reference. He didn’t take it out of context or misapply the passage for rhetorical purposes. I submit this evidences a man who actually reads the scriptures.
Proverbs 31:4-5 adds that wine and strong drink are not for civil magistrates. Again Dr. Paul meets this requirement.

Admittedly there are places Dr. Paul is weak and even wrong. He voted for a bill this session (HR 2267) that authorized internet gambling, contravening valid state laws forbidding it. He should have only voted to repeal the federal ban on internet gambling, allowing state laws to stand. He also voted to repeal the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy respecting sodomy in the US military. But of what man, other than Christ, could it not be said they were at times weak and, in some places, wrong? King David had some flaws – he committed murder by conspiring against his own army and adultery. King Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah were also at times weak or wrong in their actions. But, nevertheless, scripture calls these men good kings because, despite their sins, they sought the Lord and followed his ways in most of what they did.

The hard question in my mind is not whether Dr. Paul is qualified or even who is the best among the current republican slate of candidates since all of the other republican candidates either don't meet the basic qualifications for civil office or lack both understanding of, and credible solutions to, our national problems. The tough debate will come if he wins the republican nomination. If that is the case, I expect the November 2012 election will offer several Biblically qualified candidates from which to chose, some of whom will be able to articulate biblical solutions better than Dr. Paul. Now we'll have to chose between an Biblically acceptable candidate and a Biblically superior candidate who lacks the experience and popularity of Dr. Ron Paul.That will be a first in my voting life...but one that I am really hoping to experience.

I've Worked So Hard For This

Maybe she's telling us she needs a break.

Liberals & Conservatives: Winning the Battle for Our Country

In the minds of the ill-informed the political struggle in the United States has always been viewed as a struggle between Republicans and Democrats.
...the idea that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.- Carroll Quiqley (1966), Mentor of President William Jefferson Clinton.

Revered GU Professor Carroll Quigley

I recently received an email (with this article by Bill Burch attached) claiming that third party conservatives benefit liberals and that Jesus was not on the ballot. The implication being that we should not waste our time getting righteous men elected to office because that only benefits liberals. Rather we should work to get "electable" conservatives in office because it is always better to have a conservative than a liberal.

Well, I disagree.

Popular notions notwithstanding, the battle for our country is not a battle between conservative ideals and liberal ideals or between Marxist democrats and liberal democrats. It is a battle over whether we, as a nation, will recognize King Jesus as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords that he is. Isaiah describes the Messiah as a King, saying “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even forever.” (Isaiah 9:6-7)

In the New Testament, John adds, “And out of his mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.” (Rev 19:15-16).

All kings, not just Christian kings or nations are commanded to acknowledge the kingship of Jesus Christ. King David warns his peers, “Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, …” (Psalm 2:10-12)

God humbled Nebuchadnezar, a King of a “non-Christian” nation, until he too acknowledged the Lord’s kingship saying, “And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honored him that lives for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:” (Dan 4:34). When Pilate asked Jesus if he realized that he had power to either crucify him or let him go, Jesus told Pilate that he could have no power at all against him, except it had been given to him from above. As Romans 13 clearly indicates, the Civil Magistrate is God’s servant who exercises authority entrusted to him by God.

Yet in our day, many Christians want to separate God and State. They are willing to acknowledge his kingdom and his rule in the church, but not in the civil realm. They are willing to recognize his law when it pertains to the government of the church and their individual lives, but not when it pertains to the civil law of our land. But as foreign as such ideas sound to our ears today, this recognition of Jesus Christ as King of Kings is not only Biblical, it is our national heritage. The first state constitution of our land opens with this preamble:

For as much as it hath pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connectecotte and the lands thereunto adjoining; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as follows…

These people, the founders of our country, set up a government not simply because they thought it was a good idea, but because they understood the Word of God required it. The primary purpose of the civil order they established was to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The second purpose was to maintain the discipline of the churches, and the third purpose was to guide and govern the civil affairs of the land – transactions of property, marriage, trade etc.

We could look to Pennsylvania’s government established by William Penn. His Frame of Government required all civil rulers to possess faith in Jesus Christ. Part XXXIV reads:

That all civil rulers, shall be such as possess faith in Jesus Christ, and that are not convicted of ill fame, or unsober and dishonest conversation, …”

In his commonwealth, free exercise of religion was granted only to those who professed the one Almighty and eternal God to be the Creator, Upholder, and Ruler of the world. That excludes any who hold to evolution, or deny God to the Ruler of the world – most people in America today! In other words, the civil government recognized no right of people to freely practice false religions in violation of the first commandment.

XXXV. That all persons living in this province, who confess and acknowledge the one Almighty and eternal God, to be the Creator, Upholder and Ruler of the world; and that hold themselves obliged in conscience to live peaceably and justly in civil society, shall, in no ways, be molested or prejudiced for their religious persuasion, or practice, in matters of faith and worship, nor shall they be compelled, at any time, to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place or ministry whatever.

After all, worshipping something other than Jehovah is a sin. While righteousness exalts a nation, sin is a reproach to any people [Proverbs 14:34]. That proverb doesn’t limit the sin that brings reproach to just murder, adultery, and theft. Any sin is a reproach to any people. All people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, Jew, Muslim, or Gentile, were obliged to cease from labor on the Lord’s day.

XXXVI. That, according to the good example of the primitive Christians, and the case of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord's day, people shall abstain from their common daily labour, that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their understandings.

Or a hundred years later, the Constitution of Delaware, 1776 in Article 22 required that all civil officers – and that would extend down to notary publics – take the following oath:

ART. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
I, A B. will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced.
And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.
And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

Saying that all these documents are from another day and that things are different now, misses the point. Yes, things are different today. We live in a nation under judgment and all that that entails. Those people, on the other hand, saw their nation go from a few huts to one of the greatest nations in the world, one that many gave everything to get to. We should be asking Why are things different today? Might their understanding and acknowledgement of the present Kingship of Jesus Christ over all nations have anything to do with it? We should be seeking to determine if God is on our side, or even better, Are we on God’s side?, instead of simply assuming it. Do the views expressed by Bill Burch espouse a God honoring view of political and historical reality? If not, how can we expect God’s blessing on our labor? Without his blessing we labor in vain as David says in Psalm 127.
When examined in this historical and Biblical context, Bill Burch, however influential, politically astute, and strategically adept at winning elections he may be, is fundamentally wrong, historically ignorant, and therefore part of the problem.

A few examples are in order:

Burch Espouses Ideas Based in Darwinian Evolution
The idea that the harsh weather conditions forced the Europeans and North Africans to move from being hunter gatherers to farmers and that because of this shift their cultures prospered and those of Central and South America did not, is pure Darwinian evolution. According to God, farming, domestication of animals, music, and metalworking were advanced skills by 3500 BC , long before Europe was settled [See Genesis 4:20-22]. We know these skills were passed on through the Flood, because Noah not only planted a vineyard, but got drunk on wine from its grapes. Britain was settled by 1104 BC (about the time of King David) by Brutus and his wife, Ignoge, daughter of Greek King Pandrasus who arrived by ship after stopping at a number of other places. Clearly they were not ignorant hunter-gatherers who only know how to swing clubs and throw rocks. They could sail the ocean and navigate by the stars from the day they arrived in England.
Burch also believes the indigenous people of South Americans have been blocked by their environment from reaching their true potential. But once again this is gross historical error. For example, the Lacandon people who live in the modern day Mexican state of Chiapas were indeed, some of the crudest people anywhere on the earth following World War II. But despite recent claims to distance them from the Maya’s, they are most undoubtedly a remnant of the Mayan culture. They dressed like the Mayans, shaped their babies heads like the Mayans, spoke almost the same language, and esteemed the same holy cities.

Far from being a people who never prospered, they are descended from one of the most advanced civilizations the world has known. The ancient Mayan civilizations of Central America were extremely competent in civil engineering, mathematics, and astronomy. The Dresden Codex contains a repeating calendar that could predict solar eclipses over a 23-year cycle. They were able to compute the synodic period of Venus with an error less than 1/400th of a second per day. The celestial mechanics required to do this are beyond the capabilities of most graduates of American colleges. The Mayans developed the concept of zero over a thousand years before European civilizations learned of the idea from the Hindi of India. But also among the records etched in stone are the depictions of great abominations. Brutal human sacrifices mercilessly butchered tens of thousands of people made in God’s image. Why are they the pitiable, ignorant, brutal people we see today? In the light of passages such as Deuteronomy 28, which spell out awful consequences of rejecting God’s ways, one would have to say they fell because their culture was an abomination to God. Cortez arrived to find a decadent society that had crumbled within and, with a handful of men, was able to conquer a vast but rotting empire. Is the Locandon primitive? No, he’s actually a decadent. Their plight today is the result of a long tragic descent from an advanced civilization.

The same can be said of the Chichua, descendants of the Peruvian Incas. They are content to live their lives as little more than cocaine addicted slaves. But at one time the ancestors of these people were able to perform successful brain surgery as evidenced by skulls showing cranial holes with bone regeneration. Similar surgery with the same tools has been successfully duplicated in recent times. They built massive stone structures without mortar by fitting the stones so tightly together that even today, a millennia later, it is still impossible to stick a piece of paper between the stones.

The concept of primitive man is a creation of Darwinian evolution, a pagan religion whose adoption has brought America to her knees with problems remarkably similar to those described in Deuteronomy 28. Granted, there are numerous means that have been instrumental in this collapse, just as there were secondary means in the collapse of the Incas, Mayas, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Greeks, and Romans. But ultimately, as Job understood , these causes are but the servants of Almighty God, sent by his decree of wrath and withdrawn by his decree of mercy.

Burch Advocates Blind Straight Ticket Voting
Burch writes elsewhere:

Since Republicans believe in freedom, regardless of whether they are liberal, moderate, or conservative, it is best to vote straight ticket than to vote for the individual in a general election.

But for a Christian, our goal cannot be to win elections. Our goal must be to honor and obey the King. Winning an election is useless if we have to compromise the Kingship of Jesus Christ to do it. Our duty is to obey God’s law, to declare his righteousness, and to take every thought captive for his glory, not to promote the less wicked over the more wicked by blindly voting a straight ticket to keep a certain party in power, as Bill Burch claims.

While Jesus may not be on the ballot, he has told us who should be put on the ballot. There are at least 20 such qualifications in Scripture gleaned from 2 or 3 times that many passages (Exodus 18:21, Deuteronomy 16:18-19; 17:15-19; Proverbs 31:4-5 are a few of the more well known). Voting for people without regard for these qualifications is to disobey God and not walk is his ways as surely as surely as ignoring the flashing red and blue lights in your rearview mirror. The logic that rejects third party voting is discussed in more detail at an earlier blog.

Nowhere in scripture does civil restoration depend on getting the right person elected or the right laws passed. In fact, it is just the opposite: electing good rulers requires civil restoration. Civil restoration results from confession and repentance. God told Solomon:

“… If I shut up heaven that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people; If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. … And as for thee, if thou [you singular meaning Solomon] wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, and do according to all that I have commanded thee, and shall observe my statutes and my judgments; Then will I stablish the throne of thy kingdom, … But if ye [you plural meaning the people] turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them; Then will I pluck them [plural referring to the people] up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name, will I cast out of my sight, and will make it to be a proverb and a byword among all nations. And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passes by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and unto this house? And it shall be answered, Because they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath he brought all this evil upon them. 2Chronicles 7:12-22.

Good rulers, and the good laws they enact, are the fruit of turning back to God, not the cause of it. William Penn concurred with this concept, saying in his Form of Government: “Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad; if it be ill, they will cure it. But, if men be bad, let the government be never so good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to their turn.”

Burch Assumes a Marxist View of Our Nations Origins
The idea that our country was founded by Europeans who moved here because they were not getting their just compensation from the collective could not be more wrong. There may have been such people, but they were not the basis of our culture. More often then not, they were sent packing back to England. Even a cursory reading of any of our founding documents will refute this outrageous assertion. A statement much closer to the truth would be the Europeans who were unwilling to accept anything less than the Kingship of Jesus Christ over all earthly authority came to America. See The Plymouth Plantation by William Bradford or this article on the Collapse of Our Culture for some additional information regarding the purpose and motives of those who first established the law and order in America.

Burch Believes the Marxist Democrats Are Throwing Away America
In a less obvious example of being off base, Burch belittles conservatives who “have been staying home in greater and greater numbers because they could see little difference between the two Parties.” He supposes that now, following the election “everyone can see a difference” between the parties, insinuating the stupidity of those who failed to see the difference before the election.
Well, I for one still don’t see much meaningful difference between Bush’s conservatism and Obama Marxism. One tacks right and the others tacks ninety degrees to the left. But at the end of the day, they are both going the same direction. Wherever they have a chance to really make a difference, they follow the same course. The anti-war Senator Obama has become the pro-war President Obama. The conservative, pro-life Governor Bush became a sodomy-promoting President Bush, as well as a bigger deficit spender than all of his democratic predecessors.

I am not alone in drawing this conclusion. In fact I’m in rather prestigious company. Professor Carroll Quigley, an authority on 20th century history and the only mentor President Clinton recognized by name in accepting his second democratic nomination, asserts that the Eastern Establishment has been the dominant element in both parties since 1900. He claims that this establishment, which he describes as Anglophile, cosmopolitan, Ivy League, and internationalist, is above parties, being more concerned with policies than party victories.

He goes on to say that “in the minds of the ill-informed” the political struggle in the United States “has always been viewed as a struggle between Republicans and Democrats at the ballot box in November.” [Emphasis added.] Given Clinton’s respect for him, it is obvious Quigley is no fan of the Republican right. So this is not some right-wing conspiracy nut. This is liberal scholar who is not at all concerned with the concepts he has just articulated. In fact, in his opinion the idea “that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.” [Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope: The History of the World In Our Time, (Macmillan Company: New York, 1966) p. 1245-7, Emphasis added.]

Incidentally, many of Obama’s supporters are seeing the same thing. See Maureen Dowd’s recent op-ed in the New York Times, Thanks for the Memories, especially some of the reader comments.

For all these reasons, it’s my opinion that the idea that third party conservatives benefit liberals is itself misguided. I am not advocating third parties or that all Christians should exit the Republican Party. Quite the contrary, we need principled Christians in places of influence. What I am advocating is that we evaluate candidates by the absolute and unchanging standard of God’s Word and have a complete pragmatism in regards to all parties. If Ron Paul is running in the Democratic Party, vote Democratic. If he is running in the Republican Party, vote Republican. If he is running in the Whatever Party, vote in that party.

Our objective must be to uphold the Crown rights of Jesus Christ, to acknowledge his rule, his law, and his authority. We can only do that when we vote for people who are equally committed to upholding the crown rights of Jesus Christ and who meet the scriptural qualifications for civil rulers. If we fudge on obeying these portions of God’s Word in order to help the “better” of two bad candidates win the election, we are no different than Saul, who fudged just a little on obeying God’s commandment to destroy the Amalekites in order to offer more sacrifices to God. The Lord was angry with him and rejected him as King.

And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices (i.e. winning elections), as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. (1Sa 15:22-23)

If voting for the Ron Paul candidate in the Whatever Party allows Mr. Bad Dude to win the election, than so be it. Obedience is more important than winning because God blesses obedience and judges disobedience. That judgment begins with the house of God. But if we honor God first, who knows, it just might be that through our obedience maintaining the crown rights of Jesus Christ, the Lord is pleased to bring victory. That is, after all, what he has promised.

Wasted Third Party Votes

The intramural debate among Christians over third party candidates is underway once again. When I first voted outside the Demoblican party, I don’t remember any serious discussions about such things among Christians. Their response to my third party comments, if there was any at all, was simply, “Huh ???”

But over the 6 intervening presidential election cycles the debate has matured considerably. Now I hear Christians contemplating complicated electioneering strategies (like switching parties to vote for the other party’s worst candidate in the primary in the hope they will win the nomination and set up an easier race in the fall) or asserting that a vote for a good third party candidate is really a vote for the worst candidate. To which my response was, “Huh???”

So in an effort to catch up to my more articulate brothers and sisters on this quadrenially important topic, I sat down tonight, after spending the day painting a large sign for my favorite candidate which will be mounted on the main traffic artery through our town, and tried to improve my contribution to this discussion.
On voting for the candidate who can’t win …

• Elections are not a horse race where voters try to pick the winning ticket.


• Elections are a wheelbarrow race where voters make the winner.


• Not voting for a good candidate because he is not expected to win is giving up before the wheelbarrow race is over.


• Choosing the lesser-of-two-evils over a good candidate because no else is voting for him is being controlled by peer pressure like a junior high socialite.

On voting for the lesser of two evils …

• If you vote for the lesser of two evils for President, you’ll always have an evil President.


• You can’t expect God to provide you with a good President when you vote for an evil one any more than you can expect God to provide you with daily bread when you sleep all day instead of working.


• Voting for the lesser of two evils disobeys the admonition in Exodus 18:21 to choose good men (i.e. able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness) to exercise civil rule.


• A vote for the lesser of two evils is doing evil in the hope of stopping evil.


• A vote for the lesser of two evils is a wasted vote in getting a good candidate elected.


• Voting for the lesser of two evils in the hope of avoiding a greater evil is like stealing food in order not to starve.


• Defining an election in terms of the lesser of two evils is like falling for the false dilemma of values clarification exercises where 5 people are stranded in a lifeboat with supplies for 4 and thinking that one person should be thrown overboard (regrettably, of course) in order to keep the other 4 alive.


• Voting for a good candidate instead of the lesser of two evils is not a vote for the greater of two evils, anymore than keeping 5 stranded people on a lifeboat for 4 is choosing to kill 5 people.

A vote for a good candidate is, as should be obvious, simply a vote for a good candidate.

Of course, I suspect the real issue is that lesser-of-two-evil voters do not really believe they are choosing the lesser to two evils. They believe they are choosing a basically good candidate who, while qualified for office, is simply not everything they might desire in an ideal candidate.
Whether someone is a qualified candidate (i.e. good) or an unqualified candidate (i.e. evil) who is simply less evil than another depends on the positions and records of each candidate and can‘t be answered by armchair logic. It requires digging into the gritty details. Let's look at main party options.

One option in this election is Barrack Hussein Obama.
There are some professing Christians who think Obama is the best choice for Pro Lifers (e.g., the Matthew 25 Network endorsed by Douglas W. Kmiec, a former assistant attorney general under President Reagen) because under an Obama presidency there would be fewer abortions than under a McCain presidency. The reasoning of these people is that free government health care would reduce the number of unsupported mothers who abort their babies because they are able to properly care for them. In addition better access to birth control would reduce the number of unwanted babies and thus reduce the number of abortions. This sounds a lot like the “A vote for a good third party candidate is a vote for Obama” logic. I don’t think I buy it here either.

A vote for Obama is a vote for someone who believes it’s okay to murder unborn babies.

Another self-professed pro-life, pro-Obama Christian is Frank Schaeffer, son of the late Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer. He thinks Obama is the best candidate for pro-lifers because he would lead the nation to where life is actually valued not just talked about. (See his article Pro-Life and Pro-Obama.) However, that seems hard to reconcile with Obama’s well known voting record on abortion legislation and his comments on the floor of the Illinois Senate against the Illinois born alive legislation that mandated caring for babies born alive despite efforts to kill them in utero (Transcript of Obama's verbal opposition to Born Alive on the IL Senate floor).

What ever else this man believes, he clearly condones the practice of murder and that alone disqualifies him from being a civil magistrate according to Exodus 18:21.

Another option is John McCain, regarded by many as the lesser of two evils.
Some Christians argue that we should vote for him, despite his many weaknesses, because he will appoint better judges. With McCain appointed judges, the argument goes, we’re more likely to maintain our freedom to homeschool, own guns, and evangelize, and there is a better chance Roe v. Wade could be overturned. People can say that our freedoms are safer with a McCain presidency just like Frank Schaeffer can say fewer babies would be aborted under Barrack Obama. But the question is, “What are the facts?”

Here are a few for your consideration:
Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by presidential candidates who were deemed the lesser of two evils (Ford, Reagen, Bush, and Bush). It hasn’t resulted in overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, some of their appointees are even considered “Liberals.”

Under lesser of two evil presidents we have continued to fight unconstitutional and unbiblical wars, preemptively invading other countries for various reasons like possession of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we have weapons of mass destruction too. Does that mean China is entitled to invade us because they feel threatened by our weapons of mass destruction? If not, then why is it any more right for us to invade Iraq simply because we feel threatened by their weapons?

War involves killing other people. This is Biblical when it is in self-defense. To say a war is not justified is to say we are intentionally killing people without Biblical justification to do so. That’s murder. If the invasion of Iraq was a response to 9/11, why had the President (a lesser of two evils candidate) completed plans for an Iraqi regime change 8 months before September 11, 2001? (See The Price of Loyalty by Ron Suskind, p75, 160.) Obviously the purpose for the war had nothing to with terrorists flying planes into American buildings.

Since McCain has the same foreign policy advisors as President Bush ( See Pat Buchanan's article None Dare Call It Treason ), there is every indication he intends to continue fighting unconstitutional wars.
Under lesser of two evil presidents the absorption of the US military, economy, and legal system into the global military, economy, and legal system has progressed at the same pace as under the “avoid at all cost” Presidents. In fact, if anything, it has proceeded at a faster pace under the Bush regimes than under the Clinton Presidency.



Lesser-of-two-evil presidents have increased the national debt faster than our avoid-at-all-cost President with Reagan and G.W. Bush being the worst offenders. (Graph courtesy of zfacts.com accessed October 11, 2008.)


What expectation is there that McCain will be any different?


A sampling of McCain’s senate votes shows:

• March 6, 2003 – Roll Call 43. Voted to support the continuation of the decades-old U.S. program for “general and complete disarmament” originally proposed in the well known 1961 State Department document Freedom From War (Department of State Publication 7277). The ongoing goal of that plan is to disarm all countries, including the U.S., to “a point where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.” You can read the complete document at the state department archives: Freedom From War.


• May 23, 2003 – Roll Call 196. Voted against the tax cuts in the Conference Report of HR 2.


• May 23, 2003 – Roll Call 203. Voted to raise the debt ceiling by $984 billion in H. J. Res. 51.


• July 31, 2003 – Roll Call 318 & 319. Voted to support free trade agreements with Singapore and Chile, laying stepping-stones to full implementation of FTAA and the complete relinquishment of economic sovereignty (H.R. 2738 & H.R. 2739). For example, see Why say no to FTAA or John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.


• October 30, 2003 – Roll Call 420. Voted to impose restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases under the mistaken notion that global warming is the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. Not only is this bad science (See http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm ), it is also contrary to the constitution as such authority is not granted to the Congress anywhere in Article 1, Section 8.


• November 6, 2003 – Roll Call 444. Voted to appropriate $80 billion for aid to farmers, rural development and nutrition programs. Essentially this is giving money to people for not working. It is not biblical (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12), it’s not constitutional, and it’s not fiscally responsible.


• March 16, 2005 – Roll Call 52. Voted to remove language in S. Con. Res. 18 that would allow leases for oil & gas exploration in ANWR effectively preventing development of domestic energy resources. In November he voted a second time to prevent drilling in ANWR (Roll Call 288) .


• June 30, 2005 – Roll Call 170. Voted for CAFTA. The goal of the Central America Free Trade Agreement is to create a EU style economic union in the Americas, bringing American people under foreign courts and trade rulings.


• March 2, 2006 – Roll Call 29. Supported the continuation of the Patriot Act (H.R. 3199). See Wikipedia's Controversial Invocations of the USA PATRIOT Act for a few examples of the abuses allowed under this act. To be fair, many of these abuses could have happened before this act. The Act simply woke people up to the existing state of affairs. But that doesn't make his vote any better.

According to the Congressional Quarterly, Senator McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. (see CG Voting Study)

Thinking McCain will be any different than Bush, is like Frank Shaeffer thinking that Obama will lead the nation to where life is valued not just talked about. His senate voting grade, as best I can gather, is about 45-50%. So obviously he’s made a few good votes as well. But that’s not saying much. The same could probably be said of almost all felons. They’ve probably obeyed as many laws as they have broken. Students that are wrong 50% of the time are considered bad students and are flunked at most schools. Why is it any different for senators?

How about voting for a good candidate? Thankfully we still have that option.

A Quarter of Texas Supports Legalizing Sodomite Marriage

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:

Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

On Tuesday last week, 76% of the voters in the state of Texas exercised their judicial authority to uphold the law of God in the state. 24% of the voters attempted to cast down the law of God, calling good evil, and evil good. In many rural counties the vote ran as high as 10:1 for the amendment. Travis county was the only place the amendment actually lost (by 2:3 margin).

But I don't know which is the greater tradgedy, that over half a million people in Texas think sodomy is acceptable or at least were willing to vote to bring reproach on our land; or the 10,322,980 people who didn't care enough to vote. I grant there were probably some who honestly forgot, some who were in coma's in the hospital and so on. That still leaves 10,000,000 people who didn't care if a reproach was brought on the land or not.

Polls indicate that 30% (or about 4,000,000 registered voters) consider themselves Christian in the state of Texas. If everyone who voted to pass the amemdment was a part of this group, then there were 2.3 million people who consider themselves Christian but did not vote to outlaw what Christ has declared to be outside the law. Clearly the problem in our culture is merely a reflection of a bigger problem with the church.

Until the church of Jesus Christ becomes the salt of the earth, the light set on a hill, we have no room to complain about the course of society, the state of our public schools, or the tyranny of judicial legislation.

But I am grateful for the 1.7 million people who honored their Creator at the polls last Tuesday. Thank you.