Comments on: On Politics: Go Shane Claiborne! (Why the Republican Party Does Not Have a Lock on the Young Christian Vote)

By: DeeW

DeeW — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:04:17 +0000

The Supreme Court has done nothing? The GOP has done nothing on abortion? You must have missed Laci and Conner’s law, and the ban on partial birth abortions. The latter was signed by the President and was upheld by only a 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court (a ruling Obama denounced). Without Bush’s appointees that would not have happened. Your comments on that indicate you don’t follow the news very often as those were very significant events at best, or at worse, you are not telling the truth. In either case, you are wrong.

By: DeeW

DeeW — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:04:00 +0000

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:47:58 +0000

Dear Donny,
I’m probably late to the party on this one and maybe no one will be reading it, but here goes anyway. Also, don’t know if anyone else has made these points so please forgive any redundancy.
Ever since you’ve posted this blog, I’ve been wanting to respond to it but have had so much going on in my life in terms of making ends meet, salvaging my bank account, my credit, not losing my home (not due to the recent mortgage issue, just a drastic loss of income due to being laid off nearly 2 years ago), etc (which gives me a personal insight into some of the issues that are being tossed around by the Democratic hopefuls for President, that I think gives me a deeper sense of where this is all at) , especially given that the DNC is going on even as I write, that I only have a moment now to write and will try to be quick and to the point.
1. First I think it presumptuous for the Republican Party to assume that to have let the “drive by media” choose McCain, because they assumed that the battle would be between Hilary and he, that immediately Conservatives would rush to his side. However, at the same time, while Conservatives could make a statement through their actions against McCain, to prove a point…he needs them to win, I don’t think now or in this scenario is the time to make such a statement as a greater issue is at stake. While I don’t necessarily like McCain, I believe of the two, I would choose the better of the two evils.
2. I believe this notion put forth by Obama summed up in the word “Change”, reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode where a book by Martians who were about to invade Earth, that was titled “To Serve Man”, only for the Earthlings to realize at the last moment, that what this book was, is a cook book, and man was what was to be served. The word “change” with Obama and the whole DNC to me is a Trojan horse. Aside from the fact that Obama has indeed “changed” several times on issues, not because of substance, but for convenience and as his pastor of 20 years said (and a pastor of that tenure should know his congregant/parishioner), that what he is doing is for “political expediency”. This is in addition to my sense that the DNC is possibly giving us a snow job with rhetoric that sounds “Christian” in order to appeal to this population, though it completely opposes their liberal history of declaring, legislating and pushing an agenda of “separation of Church and State”. Likewise, if there is a smaller % of rich and a greater % of poor, rhetoric against the rich will most certainly appeal to the greater mass, thus, potentially sealing their victory in a national vote. In any event, anything that has the right tone, right “message”, right heartfelt appeal, to gain the greatest response…to borrow Voight’s revelatory accusation, Hitler did the same and so will any other, who takes on the right cue’s and themes, to the ultimate demise of reason and reality.
3. As per the war and whether or not it is for oil as a Michael Moorism conspiracy, the last I heard, our soldiers and military are paying $4/gallon in Iraq like everyone else. Or that except for a few rogue soldiers, we are not ransacking, raping and killing innocent Iraqis or being imperialistic in our approach to countries such as Iraq. I know for a fact that though the threat of nuclear potential was the driving idea behind going to Iraq, that hundreds of Iraqi’s were also “pounding on Washington’s door” to do something on behalf of the Iraqis who were innocently being killed by Hussein (check out this video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X35rhitzKPQ&feature=related
4. Being a recent needy recipient of social services, and seeing the complete ludicrous policies that set it’s parameters and target “needy”, to hear Obama and others declare that the Bush Tax Cuts favor the rich, please by all means read this following article: http://www.letxa.com/articles/9 To summarize, if the rich pay most of the taxes collected by the IRS, even with all of their loopholes, it would stand to reason that the rich benefit the most from any tax cuts. To show how foolish the baby of the liberal “help the poor” structure of social services is, I paid for nearly 30 years into the system, but I cannot access some of their services, because until I finally succumb to bankruptcy, I’m not poor enough, even though I am now working at nearly minimum wage. If this system is the same one that is suppose to run the supposed healthcare put forth by either an Obama or a Hilary, so that “every” American has coverage, then they can surely keep it. The best they can do right now doesn’t even provide me adequate healthcare that they currently have available and it runs along the “poor” man’s services that really stinks…my wife who has need of more medical care than I can’t even get the services she needs, and those they are suggesting are too far away, compared to what we had when I had a good job and had a choice. Social Services like so much of the “help” the government offers as a result of liberal efforts, make me depend completely on them or else there is nothing. Instead of supplementing, I have to depend on them completely…it takes away my independence, even though I have paid into it for so long. If this system makes you feel like it’s better you do nothing, rather than work and end up with less, then it’s a system I’d prefer not have…there’s enough recipients sitting in front of a TV with their remotes who do nothing and feel that someone owes them something, that I don’t want to be a part of that – but based on what I have heard from Obama and Hilary (though she’s still could have something up her sleeve), this all sounds the same to me… no change here, just more of the same, just dressed up differently. In one of their first debates, in LA among the Hollywood elite, rich to say the least, Hilary sat up so cozy and confident to say, using Conservative rhetoric, about helping the poor and getting everyone healthcare, that “Jesus would want us to be good Samaritans” implying that as Democrats, as oppose to the “Christian” Republican’s, do more to help the poor. Then when it came to Obama’s turn, he looked at the audience, suggesting togetherness with the audience in terms of being wealthy, that he believed it was all of their moral responsibility to do more for the poor. Again a Conservative rhetoric that taunts at the Christian Republicans who are “rich” and could care less for the poor. Sure it is a moral responsibility of those who are well to do, to help those less fortunate. But if I were rich, I’d find creative, comprehensive and choice ways to help the poor…as I did when I earned more, and certainly do through my church and Christian organizations, as opposed to giving…or should I say, have taken from me, by the government to do what it deems important to help the poor, such as support Planned Parenthood’s undisclosed and secret intent on diminishing the poor population through abortion, especially the African American community. Besides this “Moral” exercise by the government, this is coming from the party that declares that you can’t legislate morality, when it comes to abstinence, etc…isn’t this a legislation of morality as Obama puts it, to have the government take more from the rich because they should be moved to help the poor. If all of the pork was removed from our taxes, I am sure a lot more could be done for the poor that is comprehensive, than what is going on now. People complained when tax payer monies were lessened that went to the Endowment for the Arts…boohoo, I’m for helping poor kids with their music development, and artistic abilities, but let the very industry that we are already supporting through our CD purchases, movies and theaters, etc. (a multibillion dollar industry at that) support such an effort…after all, it eventually benefits them as they self support the future representatives of that industry…why should my tax dollars do that?
5. Though Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have had problems with Jeremiah Wright’s rhetoric a few months back when it was finally covered by the “drive by media”, I beg to differ on him slightly. The notion that America deserved the 9-11 attacks due to our failures, racism, etc as Wright points out, “it’s in the bible”. I would like to correct him by saying that often when Israel was attacked by foreign countries, it was sometimes because they were trying to take away from Israel what God had promised them, but so often, and probably more often, it wasn’t because of their idolatry and other sins, as much as it was because they had backslidden from God. In other words they sinned and fell into idolatry and became the harlot, because they had backslidden from God…America has done likewise. The 9-11 attacks brought us to our knees…at least for a moment…but we are a stiff-necked people.
6. Anyway, I am sure I had other thoughts swimming around in my head while contemplating this over the last few weeks, but I for now, I close with this thought: When I think of the issue of the poor, of which right now I am one of them, I have this to say…or should I say, Jesus had this to say: Mark 14:7:
“For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you will not always have Me.” Amplified Bible However, to reiterate this Trojan horse theory I have about Change and everything else the DNC is putting out there, I think of Judas who was upset with the prostitute who washed Jesus feet with her tears and expensive perfume, saying, think how we could have sold the perfume and helped the poor…this notion of Evangelicals flocking to the essential left because of the “issues”, they may not realize that they may be getting a snow job. Mind you, not that disgust with Republicans isn’t a valid issue, but I prefer the better of the two evils, if I had to vote on it.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:47:00 +0000

By: Walter Ballin

Walter Ballin — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:46:10 +0000

Lew, You are ignorant. Barack Obama has never stated that he supports abortion on demand. He says that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I know that he supports more funding for birth control. You are wrong that Obama wants to encourage people to be on welfare, when in fact he supports more job opportunities and putting people to work. The thing is that today’s Republicans and people like you care more about people when they aren’t born yet, but not about people once they are alive. You all oppose more money for education, spending for more affordable housing, better health care, and the list goes on and on. Oh, but you’ll stand in front of a family planning clinic to intimidate people from obtaining services and treatment that they need and saving the “unborn!” And before you say that I support “abortion on demand,” again I agree with Obama’s position that I mentioned above. What I do support is promoting more birth control programs. I say that family life course must be taught in our schools, and these courses must be mandatory just like English, Math, and Science. Our youngsters must be taught BOTH about abstinence and the use of birth control. Parents should be teaching their children this but many don’t.

As for what your statement that Obama “supports homosexual marriage – Not biblical and not really a federal issue to begin with mind you,” you are wrong on that too. Obama says that Gay marriage is a matter for the states to decide, but that he supports civil unions and giving Gay and Lesbian partners the same rights as heterosexuals. I say that you are a bigot! When you say that Gay marriage is not biblical, there are religious leaders who state that no where in the Bible does it say that Gay marriage is a sin. However, didn’t Jesus say that “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” and “Love thy neighbor as thyself?” I say enough of you judgmental bigots!

By: Walter Ballin

Walter Ballin — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 05:46:00 +0000

By: lew

lew — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:05:38 +0000

Before you go and label me a Republican… in 2 of the the last 4 elections I voted for neither of the two parties and this one I will vote for a 3rd party once again. Unless one of those two repents, I’ll never vote for them again.

I really hate to say this, but anyone who votes for the Democrats and Obama isn’t awake quite honestly. If you think the Republican’s haven’t been honest with you, think about how DISHONEST the Democrats INCLUDING Barack Obama have been.

- Obama was just endorsed by Planned Parenthood. With the INTENDED purpose and actual TAPE recordings of PURPOSEFUL extermination of blacks, they’re SINGLARY responsible for the eradication of millions upon millions of blacks in this country. And over the world it’s even higher.

- Obama has changed his view on what he’d do in Iraq 2 times already. How can you believe him just on that?

- Seems like he’s received some funny loans for housing from a friend who’s probably going to do some serious time in the slammer.

- He doesn’t know his pastor uses such inflamatory and racial remarks and he’s gone to the church for 20+ years?

- He supports abortion on demand – That’s not very biblical

- Supports homosexual marriage – Not biblical and not really a federal issue to begin with mind you.

- Supports Federal schools. This ALONE should make a practicing Christian weary! Evolution based on known lies such as butterflies, Close enough spelling – Ah, Joanne doesn’t need to really know how to spell. We’ve got computers for that!, History devoid of truth in many cases.

- Welfare that encourages MORE people on welfare rolls instead of off of them. Do you REALLY think that supplying someone’s ever physical need gets them off of the welfare rolls?

- Truth? Abortion alone has lies on both sides long enough to go around the world a few times.

- How about the Democrats who continue to not say we can afford all of the entittlement programs when the countries they like to note are actually pulling back on their programs?

- Povety? – Democrats give handouts, not a hand up. Nobody gets off of welfare unless the entire welfare system is either abolished or totally revamped. Can’t happen with Dems because that’s a large part of their constituency.

Povety is YOUR job. YOU are the church. YOU are supposed to feed, cloth and shelter people. Not the govt.

By: lew

lew — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 16:05:00 +0000