- EverVigilant.net - "The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran
Here are the top three reasons to vote against George W. Bush:
Bush is a big government liberal. While paying lip service to conservative principles like cutting spending and shrinking government, Bush has only made government more expensive and more intrusive. Overseeing the biggest federal bureaucracy in the last three decades, Bush has done more damage in the last four years than Bill Clinton did in the previous eight.
Bush is turning the world against America. His current foreign policy guarantees us a state of perpetual war as well as a further expansion of the welfare/warfare state. In additon, the doctrine of pre-emption is immoral and only serves to foment anti-American sentiment abroad.
Bush is not pro-life. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act were merely symbolic laws signed to appease pro-lifers. The former prohibits the prosecution of murdering mothers, while the latter contains a specific exemption for abortion providers. Bush has also fooled his pro-life constituency by diverting money from the United Nations Population Fund to the pro-abortion United States Agency for International Development.
By contrast, here are the top three reasons to vote for Michael Peroutka:
Peroutka stands for limited government and individual liberty. He would work for the repeal of all unconstitutional federal gun control legislation. He would fight to "close down the unconstitutional federal Department of Education." He believes, as our forefather did, that "the federal government should do nothing that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution."
Peroutka believes in a realistic foreign policy. Knowing that only Congress has the Constitutional power to declare war, he "would not commit troops to something so vague, so undefined and so un-winnable as a war on terror." He also believes in keeping America out of unnecessary foreign entanglements. The federal government's responsibility is to Americans and no one else.
Peroutka is the only true pro-life candidate. He maintains a 100% pro-life position and assures us that under a Peroutka presidency, "Roe v. Wade will not be enforced, and the member states of the Union could again open their criminal codes and begin the prosecution of the doctors and parents who would contract for the murder of an unborn child without fear of reprisal from the Chief Executive."
"No question about it. This is the most important election in our history." - Rush Limbaugh, on the election of 2000
"I think it's the most important choice we've faced in history on the direction our country should take and the kind of future we're trying to build together." - Ronald Reagan, on the election of 1984
"I am working hard in this campaign because I think it is the most important election in many, many years. The future of our country is wrapped up in the decision." - Jimmy Carter, on the election of 1980
"It was the most important election in U.S. history ... Victory was vital in 1972." - The Realist, on the election of 1972
"I believe that when we are trying to determine who should lead the free world—not just America—this is perhaps, as Senator Kennedy has already indicated, the most important election in our history." - Richard Nixon, on the election of 1960
"I am campaigning for the Democratic ticket because this is the most important election ... since the Civil War." - Harry S. Truman, on the election of 1952
"This may be the most important election in our nation's history." - Stephen Douglas, Illinois senator, on the election of 1856
Let us suppose that a particular church is deciding between two pastoral candidates. Candidate one believes in God, but doesn't see a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a necessity for salvation. Candidate Two proclaims Jesus as Lord and Savior, but believes that members of other religions worship the same God in their own way.
Candidate One thinks the Bible may be a good blueprint for living a moral life, but doesn't believe it contains absolute truth. Candidate Two believes most of the Bible is true, but thinks some fictional passages were added for dramatic effect.
Candidate One believes in gay marriage and would officiate at gay wedding ceremonies. Candidate Two claims to be against it, but says he would have no problem with hiring homosexuals as part of his pastoral staff.
Given the choices before them, how would members of this church decide on a leader? Would they scrap both candidates for their un-biblical views, or would they simply settle for the lesser of two evils?
Perhaps Christians believe the "lesser of two evils" approach to decision-making applies only to politics. But if the Bible is the standard church members use to measure their spiritual leaders, why not at least look to the Constitution as the standard by which political leaders are measured?
So, you thought the Democrats had a monopoly on the politics of fear? click here for this Quicktime presentation of some of the highlowlights from the Republican National Convention.
Democratic VP candidate John Edwards got into some hot water for remarks he made about Christopher Reeve. Edwards called Reeve "a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him. If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."
That didn't sit too well with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He said, "I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve—I think it is shameful—in order to mislead the American people."
Now, for those who capitalized on 9/11 for political gain to criticize John Edwards of being "opportunistic" is a bit hypocritical. Besides, it is impossible to divorce the image of a wheelchair-bound Superman from the issue of stem cell research since the last decade of Reeve's life was devoted to that particular cause.
Nevertheless, Frist does have a point. The Democrats are indeed capitalizing on the suffering of others. They have demonstrated over the years that they are not above any lie in order to advance their political agenda. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Edwards say that if John Kerry were elected president, we could get enough funding for stem cell research to actually raise Christopher Reeve from the dead.
A conservative reporter details his bizarre ordeal at a pro-Bush rally four years ago:
I was probably going to vote for George W. Bush four years ago. Seriously.
He seemed like a nice enough guy. And at the time I was a registered Republican. But I'd also reached a point in my political development where I could no longer be impressed by party labels or cheap imagery to win me over to any candidate. It's just that of the two major party candidates that year, if you put a gun to my head and told me to choose, I would have likely picked Bush over Al Gore, but other than that I really didn't know enough about Bush to have conviction enough to vote for him. But I had no reason not to vote for Bush: bear that in mind especially as you partake of my tale of woe, Noble Reader.
But that was before the night of October 11th, 2000 ...
At least that should be the headline for every media outlet carrying this story:
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda, despite describing extensive contacts between the two before the Iraq invasion.
Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
"I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was," Rumsfeld said.
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld added.
Oh, and the weapons of mass destruction?
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction," Rumsfeld said.
"And why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know. But the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail than they were with him in power," Rumsfeld added.
Something tells me that's about as close to an apology as this administration will get.
