The Independent Conservative

New Blog

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:22:00 +0000

Hi everyone,

I'm blogging pretty regularly over at my new blog which can be found at:

http://thatcrazychristian.blogspot.com

I blog at least once a day, so check it out!

Thanks!

Some Progress

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:11:00 +0000

Hey Everyone,

I've made some progress in deciding what I want to do to advance my contributions via blogging.

I've started a new politics blog called "A Dangerous Servant" which can be found here. Take a look and let me know what you think. I plan to try and update it on a semi-daily basis. So much is happening so quickly that I don't think it will be a problem.

I still haven't decided with what exactly I want to accomplish with my Christian blog, although my politics blog will always be from a Christian prospective, as this one always was. But, I'm still praying about it and will press forward as the Lord leads.

Please check out A Dangerous Servant for now. And let me know what you think!

Shuttin her down . . . sorta

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:53:00 +0000

Hey everyone . . . or rather, anyone who is still paying attention.

I'm shutting down the independent conservative. I'm making this decision mostly because it was a project I started while living in Wisconsin and I now live in Pennsylvania. . . again.

Therefore, I think it's time for a change, and time for me to get back into blogging, but in a new way.

Many things interest me in life, and I'm trying to figure out what is really important to me and why. I can tell you that, for certain, I will be blogging about God, and also about politics. But I am not sure how to handle that. If it should be one blog, or two. If I should completely separate the two, or allow them to play off each other.

I'm also considering blogging about music, evangelism, local Pittsburgh politics and culture, and Pittsburgh Sports. Specifically on music, I was thinking of reviewing old and new albums from artists in genres I like, and also adding a Christian viewpoint, perhaps a report card, on how a secular (or even a "christian") artist interacts with what we as Christians believe. (i.e. do they curse, do they talk about God, are there "explicit" lyrics?, etc.)

I'd love to hear your thoughts, and I'll be back in the blogosphere sooner rather than later. :-)

John McCain and Rod Parsley

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:44:00 +0000

From ABC News

Now, put the comments about Islam aside in the article. I'm not going to criticize or endorse them.

I have been to Rod Parsley's church. The man is a quack. It's your prototypical mega church with a hyper pentecostal flair. They spend like 2 hours singing 7 songs 11 times and flopping on the floor barking like dogs and "prophesying". Then Parsley gets up on the stage (note I didn't say pulpit) and yells for about an hour saying nothing of substance and hardly ever mentioning the Bible, much less quoting from it.

In fact, the one Sunday I was there, Parsley actually did open his Bible. He said he wanted God's Word to be relevant in people's lives. So we opened up to a Psalm, I believe, and he read some verses aloud. About halfway through he went back and reread some of what he had already read, only this time, he would stop at certain words and say "STOP! Now scratch that word out, and write in. . ." and then he would state a word to write in. And before you knew it, he had a lovely little man made scripture that fit his world view and what he wanted it to say perfectly. His entire church was in the throngs of ecstasy afterward singing praises to God for such an awesome sermon. No, I'm not kidding.

The sad part is that this guy has a "seminary" attached to his church business where he trains students to go and do what he does. These students often are forced to "volunteer" to work for the ministry, college, and church. I used to get calls from many a student soliciting money for this bogus mission trip, or that bogus Bible conference.

Now John McCain thinks that Rod Parsley is a "great spiritual leader." He thinks that he's a good man. We're being told by the GOP to trust John McCain, that he'll appoint conservative judges, work to fulfill our hopes, dreams, and aspirations. What a crock.

I'm so sick of this nonsense.

So called Christians endorsing so called conservatives

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 12:14:00 +0000

I suppose I shouldn't be shocked, but I must admit that when I heard that Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy yesterday, I was rather shocked. The truth is that I should have expected this. I came to the conclusion that Robertson, Dobson, et. al. are merely control mechanisms to keep the "christians" in this country in line and make sure they remain Republican voters.

In his book, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis remarked that a method of control used by Satan against Christians, was to get the Christian to think on earthly matters, rather than on heavenly matters. To look at the problems of the world and to think that it might be fun to solve them, or it would be better to solve them, or it is a more positive outcome to solve them rather than leave them alone. Of course, what this does is appeal to the Christian's laziness. He will attempt to solve the problem in the most efficient way possible, without regard to obedience to a moral code or any other restriction. What this does, essentially is force the Christian to think about the tree rather than the forest, and to put man first instead of God.

I think this is a great picture of what is happening in America today, and has been happening in this country since these hucksters began their work of evil. You see, Christians think we have a problem and her name is Hillary. So instead of looking to God for HIS answer to solve the problem, we look to the republican party. Instead of focusing on getting the right thing done, we're getting the practical thing done. As a result instead of God being sovereign in all of our lives, He is only sovereign when it is practical for Him to be sovereign.

Mark Belling had some interesting thoughts on his radio show yesterday. Basically he said that this endorsement demonstrates two points. 1. That at least half of evangelical christians don't care about abortion as much as they used too, either because it's not important, or they don't believe that the President can do anything about it. 2. Some evangelicals think that Islamic radicalism and defending Israel is a bigger problem than abortion. Let me respond to Mark's points.

1. I am shocked and amazed that any evangelical in this country actually thought abortion was a problem. With the consistent endorsement of the do nothing GOP and the lack of any action or compassion for their pre-born neighbor, I was convinced that only a select few really cared about the issue. Oh sure, it always gets thrown around in debates and in politics, but no one actually wants to DO anything. The pre-born in this country have been reduced to political footballs and it is sickening.

2. I'm sure Mark is absolutely right that many evangelicals find Israel and the Islamic bogeyman to be bigger problems that the slaughtering of innocent children in our own cities. Is it really a surprise that evangelicals would put another country ahead of their own because they think they are responsible to see that Biblical prophecy comes true? (The idea is that we have to protect Israel so that it's here when the Anti-Christ comes so that Biblical prophecy comes true. Really, I'm not kidding. Go to some God-forsaken evangelical church, they'll tell you) Does it really surprise you that evangelicals as a whole have such a low view of God and such a low view of Scripture that they actually think they have to protect it here on earth. Isn't interesting that this little viewpoint of theirs tells us about the inner workings of their hearts? Truly sad.

And of course they fear the Islamic bogeyman more than they hate abortion. They don't hate abortion at all. Some of them have baby bones in their closets, some of them are secretly thankful it exists (I mean what if the wife gets pregnant when I'm 43??!! We can't have a THIRD KID, why that would be disaster!!), some of them can't tell you why they think it's wrong (because they don't think it's wrong) The pre-born baby is out of sight, and therefore not important. The Islamic bogeyman, well now he's coming right now to blow up my city with a suitcase bomb, or so I'm told by the propagandists I trust more than scripture.

The fact of the matter is that real Christians in this country are few and far between. Pat Robertson endorses a pro-abort liberal, Bob Jones endorses a god hating moron (err, I mean mormon), Sam Brownback endorses that snake oil salesman, McCain. And little by little the Christians in this country are neutralized and the establishment doesn't have to deal with them.

One last point, pray for God's mercy. The church in this country is nothing but a whore. They sell their birthrights for soup, they give up their rightful place as standard bearers to be made to feel powerful by weak men. They remind me so much of the old testament nation of Israel that chased every false god, every sin imaginable, all to obtain, temporarily, a cheap knock off of what God offered them permanently. God's justice did not sleep on that nation forever, and it will not sleep on ours forever either. What this country needs is it's own prophet Jeremiah. May God send him soon.

My letter to congress

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 04:11:00 +0000

I wrote the following letter to Congresswoman Gwen Moore, Senators Feingold and Kohl, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senator Harry Reid. I would like to encourage you to write a similar letter about Ron Paul's H.R. 3835. The bottom line is that President Bush has zero respect for the Constitution, and it is time for the voice of the people (yeah, right) the congress to check and balance him.

Here's the letter:

I am writing in regards to H.R. 3835, also known as the American Freedom Agenda Act, that has recently been introduced by Representative Ron Paul of Texas. As a Republican constituent who supports Ron Paul for President, I am deeply concerned about the direction our nation is heading and am writing you to ask that you make sure H.R. 3835 reaches the house floor for a vote and that you vote to make this legislation law.

The American Freedom Agenda Act will overturn the Military Commissions Act of 2006, limit our current out of control Executive branch, and restore basic civil and human rights to Americans. Also, the legislative branch, the voice of the people, would have a legal standing against executive signing statements that are used too often to destroy our constitution and our way of life. Most importantly, our country would be out of the business of torture.

As a conservative, I have watched with dismay as the so called “conservative party” in this country has clearly lost it's way. I was impressed by the Democratic Party's criticisms of the Bush administration and it's constitutionally questionable policies like The Patriot Acts, warrantless wiretapping, and the Military Commissions Act. However, the time has come for the Democratic delegation in The House and The Senate to live up to it's campaign rhetoric and truly check and balance the executive branch, before it is too late.

Please support Ron Paul's American Freedom Agenda Act (H.R. 3835) through all means at your disposal.

Ron Paul in Chicago

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:06:00 +0000

Ron Paul held a rally in downtown Chicago, and I made it a point to take my son and go hear him speak. It was amazing. I'll post some pics now, and collect my thoughts later and edit this post with a review of the rally. . . so check back, mmm'kay? And yes, that's me with the good Dr. at the bottom.

Let's be clear about the surge.

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 01:24:00 +0000

OK, General Petraeus is going to report to congress in early September. It's no secret that I do not support the war in Iraq. I think undeclared wars in general are a bad idea, and even if this was a declared war, I think it is a mis-guided foray into nation building with no real bearing on our National Security. I mean really, this "we have to fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" nonsense sounds so ridiculous when you consider just how wide open our borders are. It sounds especially ridiculous when you consider that more attacks have been attempted at places like Fort Dix and JFK airport.

But I digress, back to the surge. If I were President of the United States I would have brought the troops home by now. Nation building is not the role of the military. However, clearly, I'm not the president. Bush is, and therefore has the rights to make the decision on how he prosecutes the war. He has decided on a surge of troops.

Here's a shocker. . . I hope it works. Yes, that's right, I actually hope it works. I do indeed oppose this war and think it's a mistake, BUT, we are in the situation we are in and can't change that. We can't "un-ring" the bell. So we have to do our best to succeed and I think Bush is trying to succeed. I hope he does.

A military defeat would be an embarrassment and would set us back in resolving the Bin Laden situation by a few years. Plus, it's not exactly a bad thing for a free Iraq to exist. So, considering we have an idiotic foreign policy here, and considering we are stupidly engaged in a war where we have no business being at war, we should at least not look like fools and not render the sacrifice of American lives meaningless. I hope the surge is working and, since Bush insists on Nation Building, I hope the dang nation gets built and the troops come home sooner rather than later. Moreover, I wish the troops well. They aren't responsible for the idiotic decisions on their commanders and leaders, and should be honored and cheered for, although their opinion on the mission is meaningless in my view. Staying in Iraq because the troops think we should be there is like closing the shop early because the workers want to go home.

Now if we do elect someone who has a sane, non nation building policy, then the troops should come home NOW. Let's hope we return to sanity as soon as possible.

When in the course of human events

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 03:36:00 +0000

Let's talk tax reform, shall we?

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:27:00 +0000

OK, first go to this video of the August ABC Republican Presidential Debate. Fast Forward to the 1:07:57 mark, and watch the segment on what the candidates would do about the fair tax. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

First off, the Fair Tax . . is it really fair? Well, in my opinion, no it is not fair. What does the fair tax change? Proponents of the fair tax have set the sales tax figure at 23%. Why? Because that's the amount they would need to continue the current level of spending. So shouldn't we really be asking "do we need to tax at all?"

I agree, part of the problem with the IRS is the unfair code by which it operates. Nevertheless, it is equally unjust that government takes our money, on questionable constitutional history no less, for things that the governed have not given their consent to. It is a forceful and feared arm of the federal government and the engine by which the soft tyranny of the USA is driven.

I decided to do a blog entry on this because every candidate who answered gave a pitiful response. No one gave an actual conservative response. Changing the way you tax is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It doesn't solve the REAL problem.

Now to the candidates responses:

Huckabee

He probably gave the best response to the question. He obviously is in complete support of the fair tax. He talks about how it will rebuild America, referring to the idea that many manufacturers moved off shore to avoid taxes. And right there is where he goes wacko. Tell me Mr. Huckabee, how will increasing the price of EVERYTHING 23% make people want to buy more goods, American made or otherwise? Wouldn't this force Americans to want cheaper goods, possibly goods made in China where American companies outsource jobs to avoid unions and regulations? If I had to pay 23% of 5 dollars or 7 dollars, I'd choose $5 every time, regardless of how much more money I had in my pocket. It's really that simple.

As for the rest of his argument about the fair tax eliminating penalties in the current system and exposing the underground economy, well that may all be true, but at the end of the day, making food and gasoline 23% more expensive is not much of an alternative.

Mitt "spirit baby" Romney:

He makes a stunning statement. . . "The truth is we are going to have to pay taxes." Uh, Mitt. . . . WHY??? Notice the pre-supposition he has here. He begins by talking about taxes as if they have to be here. As if they are a simple part of life. He said it with the same urgency as if he would have said 'the truth is we are going to have to eat food'. I got news for you Mitt, I think your vision of America is small and decidedly un-American. We do not need taxes, and we should not tolerate them. Our government was designed to be small and limited and it is only because of you and your big government neo-con pals that we need things so sinister and monstrous as the Federal Reserve and the IRS.

He then goes on to mention that the President's commission didn't like it, and that the fair tax has flaws. Uh. . . who cares and no kidding.

Rudy:

After spending half his answer not answering the question, he goes on to say that a simplification of the tax code is what's needed. He does mention that it would be better to not have taxes, but like Romney, he thinks they are simply a part of life. There's isn't a dimes worth of difference between those two, on any issue.

McCain:

He didn't answer the question other than to parrot what Rudy said. McCain wants to be Vice President to Rudy. Then he talked about military bases and then said something so stupid, I just had to laugh out loud.

He wants to bring in Alan Greenspan to solve the problem. Way to go John!!! Way to show leadership!!! Bring in a traitor to this country, the former head of an organization that is slowly bankrupting this country with it's fiat money to solve our tax problems.

Everyone should remember this, that McCain wants to welcome the shadow government of the Fed Reserve. The Fed Reserve is neither Federal nor a reserve. It has no real money, and nothing of value. A board of private bankers from around the globe meet regularly to decide how much money they will print and what the value of that money is going to be. They literally hold the lifeblood of our country's economy in their hands. And our GOP leaders fall all over themselves, like McCain here, to praise them and welcome them into our government. Wall Street hangs on their every word. It's about time we had real, constitutional money, and treated these foreign Fed Reserve people like the traitors they are.

Tancredo:

Toncredo supports the Fair Tax because, in his view, an income tax manipulates behavior by deciding what can and cannot be taxed.

EARTH TO TOM EARTH TO TOM!!!!! A sales tax can be used the exact same way. Big Macs aren't good for you, so their tax will be 30%. Cigarettes 110% Whiskey to people under thirty 250%. Come on, you know you could see it. Also, the auto industry is in trouble, so we'll only tax cars 18%. Oh and perhaps if Ford holds a giant fund raiser, we'll designate their new "eco-friendly model" as a 17% rate.

Simply put, the sales tax would be an even bigger social engineering nightmare than the income tax.

Brownback:

Wants an optional flat tax. I'm not real sure what that is, but my understanding of it is that you would figure your taxes like normal and then choose between paying that figure, or an optional "flat" figure. That has so many problems, I can't even begin to express. First of all, when politicians start noticing that many will actually pay less if they pay the regular amount (as opposed to the flat amount) they are going to change the law. It's unsustainable. Not to mention that you are opening yourself to a major audit if you save too much.

Basically, Brownback, as usual, doesn't solve anything.

Again, notice all of the candidates response have the same presupposition. YOU MUST BE TAXED AND TAXED AT OR AROUND YOUR CURRENT RATE. This, no matter how it is packaged, is simply unacceptable.

Also notice one of the candidates they didn't ask this question too. Ron Paul. It's a shame too because Paul actually makes sense on the issue. Or at the very least, he gives the answer that is consistent with Liberty and Prosperity. It has become a hallmark of his campaign. "If I am President, I will do away with the IRS and replace it with NOTHING."

That my friends, is real reform. That my friends, is the sound of a man who loves liberty answering a simple question about taxes. Sounds different than the rest doesn't it? Could it perhaps be that they love to tax more than they love to guard liberty? Strange passions for those that are seeking an office who's first responsibility is guard liberty.

Patrick J. Buchanan on Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Thu, 24 May 2007 02:19:00 +0000

Here is a great article by Pat Buchanan on Ron Paul, and specifically on Ron Paul's comments at the last debate. I find interesting the Republicans who seem to be opposing Paul. Take Sean Hannity for instance. This insufferable moron couldn't wait to sink his teeth into Dr. Paul after the debate and give Dr. Paul a stern talking too about national security, supporting our president, blah blah blah. He was joined by liberal Michael Steele (yes, he's a liberal, even though the GOP ran him for Senate) who said that Paul should be barred from all future debates. (Aren't liberals the ones who are supposedly pro-first amendment? Isn't the GOP supposed to actually be pro-first amendment?)

Here is a great point from the article:

When Ron Paul said the 9-11 killers were "over here because we are over there," he was not excusing the mass murderers of 3,000 Americans. He was explaining the roots of hatred out of which the suicide-killers came.

That more or less explains Paul's position. It wasn't that hard to understand to begin with, but you see, the GOP has agenda which their R.E.M (Republican Establishment Media) lackeys, and the mainstream media share. That agenda? Shut Ron Paul up before he wakes up too much of America.

You don't believe me or know what I'm talking about? This video will clear it up for you:

So yeah, go read the article. It's time someone acted the part of truth teller and fact finder about Dr. Paul's remarks, not to mention actually analyzed the comments from a logical standpoint, considering evidence objectively. Unfortunately, all we're gonna get from the Republican Establishment Media (i.e. Hannity, O'Riley, et. al.) is spin. So sad when "conservatives" act like socialists.

Give Ron Paul Money. . . America needs it more than him
Ron Paul's MySpace
Ron Paul's You Tube

Evangelicals and Ron Paul

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 22:48:00 +0000

Just ask yourself, if you're an evangelical Christian, why oh why are you not supporting Ron Paul? Just ask the question, and give yourself an honest answer.

This article by former vice-presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, is a great expose on the way many Evangelical's think about politics.

Ron Paul supports every single agenda that should be on every Evangelical's mind, yet many are actually flirting with supporting Romney or McCain?? Why? Is it because the Evangelical "leadership" says we should?

Don't we owe our King and Creator more than to be told by others what to think? Isn't it time to think for ourselves, using Scripture, not so called "leaders", as our guide? Aren't these good questions?

Go read the article. Think about it.

Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:22:00 +0000

April 18, in a narrow 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld a 2003 law that bans the practice known as partial birth abortion. On it's face, this is a sound legal decision. Certainly, the people of the United States have every right to regulate an industry, especially one with such ethical quandaries as the industry of medicine.

Around 11 AM, Jay Weber, WISN's mid-day host and a self-proclaimed conservative, informed his audience of the ruling in the following way: "The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2003 law banning partial birth abortion does not interfere with a woman's right to have an abortion." I was disappointed in Jay for phrasing his
sentence this way, and thought it rather odd. Perhaps he was reading a press release, but whatever the case, when we begin to talk about abortion in this way, we have made a fundamental shift in the debate.

To those of you in the pro-life community, and especially those of you who name the name of Christ, I have an important message for you. THIS RULING WAS A DEFEAT FOR OUR CAUSE. Allow me to explain.

He who Frames the Question

The most glaring reason why this is a defeat comes in what is not being said about this ruling. Suddenly the abortion debate has been shifted from "should the child be killed by abortion?" to "how should the child be killed?". As I walked around my work place the day after the ruling, I was appalled by the reaction of many of my Christian friends. They were cheery, elated over the results of this ruling. One Christian remarked to me that the supreme court had outlawed abortion, which of course is absurd. Another told me it was an important victory for our side. When I got home that night, my e-mail box was full of newsletters from various organizations telling me what a wonderful ruling it was, as if I had not heard of the ruling, and of course ending with a plea that "we need your support (read: MONEY) now more than ever" and "the battle isn't over yet". Sadly, the battle never began.

When we shift the debate from how to kill the baby from should we kill the baby, we have taken an important step down the slippery slope, and towards outright wickedness. This is no victory, this is a defeat. It is a defeat because the question is now framed: "Abortion is here to stay. End of discussion. The only thing we can do to attempt to slow it down is dictate what brutality can be exacted on the innocent pre-born."

Let's review

If I recall the great debate over partial birth abortion in 2002 and 2003, I remember being completely unimpressed with the legislation. I even remarked that the bill Congress was considering was so bad that, if I were a congressman, I would think hard about not voting for it. This bill had it all. First of all, it outlawed a procedure that was easy to avoid doing. Essentially the law says that you can't partially deliver the baby and then perform an abortion. So if I'm an murderer (an abortionist) or an accomplice to murder (an abortive mother) I would simply get around this law by having the exact same procedure performed with the baby still in utero. Really, it's that simple to avoid breaking this law. This partial birth abortion "ban" stops nothing.

Furthermore, we of course have the obligatory re-confirmation of "a woman's right to choose" and the recognition of Roe vs. Wade as the "law of the land" written RIGHT INTO THE LAW. It is a pathetic commentary on the so called conservative party in this state that they had sizable majorities in 2003, but yet needed to add such language into the bill to gain enough votes to pass it. Bush signed it and then made a statement that "America isn't ready to end abortion".

Sadly, I think he's right.

Know your enemy

In 2003, after the law was passed, we heard about the sky falling as a result. Or at least that's what you would have thought if you listened to the wicked left of this country. Yes Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW, the ACLU, and the Democrat party all told us that these were dark times for our constitution, women, and the world in general.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I could sell you real cheap.

What the wicked left didn't tell you was that secretly they were laughing at this law. Even though they have now started up another round of these ridiculous assertions, they knew then and know now that this won't put a dent in the abortion industry at all. Nearly 4,000 babies died every day in 2002, and nearly 4,000 die every day in 2007. It has made no difference, and they know it.

So why the caterwauling? Because they know that we'll take the bait. They know that instead of us concentrating our efforts on doing the right thing and ending abortion, if the left screams loud enough, enough people on the right will think they're really getting somewhere. Lo and behold, all I've heard from 98% of the "pro-life" organizations in America since 2003 is about partial birth abortion. See what's happened? The left has manipulated the all too willing to be manipulated mainstream pro life movement into fighting for something that won't make a difference.

Think about it, if the left really cared to overturn this law, they'd overturn it. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid control congress. They should introduce a bill to overturn the law. They won't. It's more important to Nancy and Harry that we pro-lifers spend many years rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic instead of actually standing up for the pre-born.

From Liberal to Conservative?

Examine, if you will, the nature of this ruling. Justices Scallia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas predictably voted to uphold the ban. Surprisingly Justice Anthony Kennedy joined them. I find it interesting that Kennedy was the one chosen to write the majority opinion.

Rush Limbaugh said on the day the ruling was announced that he had spoken to a Justice (he didn't name the Justice) in the past who said to him that the Justices do not debate their rulings with one another. He said they simply meet and vote with their minds already made up.

Now if you believe that, I still have that bridge in Brooklyn on the market.

Kennedy had to have some reason for voting for this ruling. After all, before the Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Conner retired, Kennedy was firmly on the liberal side of the court. I of course have no proof of the following; but I think that the old school conservatives, Thomas and Scallia, desperate to do SOMETHING to make some headway on abortion, persuaded Kennedy to their side by allowing him the prestige of writing the majority opinion of the most important case since Gore vs. Bush.

And what an opinion it was! Yes, it did say that the ban was constitutional. It's what it also said that was quite revealing. Kennedy said that this ruling doesn't end the debate, and in fact, the court could change it's opinion in the future. Yes that's right, this is the first time in American history that a ruling on the Supreme Court was not the final judicial word in the matter. He may as well had bought every ACLU lawyer a Christmas present, because what this statement means is that we are in for more challenges to the law, more lawsuits, more of the same debate over a meaningless law that ends nothing.

Then there is the presupposition present in all the language within the ruling that assumes as fact a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. This is the first real big abortion case to hit the Supreme Court, the one court with the power to overturn Roe vs. Wade, since 1990 and they still are upholding a right created out of thin air for a woman to pay someone to commit murder.

What Victory Looks Like

I suppose that I should throw my brethren in the pro-life movement a bone and define what victory actually looks like. It's clear they don't understand when they think this garbage from the Supreme Court is victory.

Victory is Abortionist's hunted down and put on trial for murder. Victory is the state protecting the rights of all people, regardless of age or birth status. Victory is the end of abortion, not merely the regulation of it. Anything less is defeat.

Really, it's that simple.

A Good Man Needs Your Help

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:31:00 +0000

I beginning to think that I wasn't going to be able to vote for President in 2008. I mean honestly, John McCain, Mit Romney. . . really?

Then there's Rudi Giuliani, who I think would be a great defense secretary, maybe a good secretary of state, but as far as the presidency goes, let's face facts, the guy's not a conservative. Sam Brownback is, but it seems he is content to be the President of Mexico north, not to mention, could you honestly see Brownback at the same table as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad??

But never fear my pro-life, pro-liberty, strict constitutional, limited government friends. . . one of US is running for President. That man is none other than Texas Congressman Ron Paul. ( Ron Paul's Wiki Ron Paul's MySpace Ron Paul's Campaign Site )

This is the same guy who never takes junkets, never has voted to raise taxes, never has voted to expand government beyond it's constitutional boundaries. We need about 300 more congressman in Washington just like Paul. If we did, perhaps we wouldn't be paying for illegal immigrants to sue the government in court and be giving Planned Parenthood millions to pay for more abortions.

OK, so now you know. . . which means that the responsibility is yours. Tell some folks you know why Paul is the best option, go to his campaign site and sign up to help him. Give him some money (I did) to help get the message out. Just do something! Guys like this don't come by every election, especially in one of the major parties, and this guy is worth it. . .trust me.

Time to call your representatives!

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 04:16:00 +0000

If I may, I'd like to encourage you all to contact your Sate Senator, State Assemblyman, and Congressman today.

Let me tell you why. . .

In Wisconsin:

Currently sit at #6 in the nation for taxation. That means that only 5 other states have a higher tax burden than us. Scary, huh? Well our ever brainless Governor has decided that it would be wise to INCREASE the tax burden by 1.75 BILLION (yes BBBBBillion, with a "B") dollars. The democrat state senate will probably give him everything he wants, so our only hope, right now, is the republican controlled assembly. Currently the GOP has a three seat majority in the assembly. If history be our guide, we know that we have much to fear when our only hope of stopping bad policy lies at the feet of Republicans. They will only respond the right way if enough of us raise a stink about our idiot Governor's plans to tax every last one of us to death.

Also, keep in mind that the 1.75 Billion dollar increase does not yet include the 17% payroll tax that has been hinted at, and is rumored to be unveiled soon, to pay for Government Health Care. Trust me my friends, this policy will be a disaster. I can tell you that as a small business owner, I already pay WAY too many taxes. (We are the second most taxed group of Americans, by the way, a distant second behind the wealthy) A 17% tax would likely drive me, and other small business men out of business, and all for a worthless Government health care plan. It might be wise to mention this in your phone call.

OK, now for your US Congressman:

This week the US House passed a resolution that expressed disapproval of President Bush's troop surge plan for the war in Iraq.

OK, now before you get the wrong idea, please read some of my other blog entries. I am not for the war in Iraq, not for a second. It is a complete waste of time, and a complete misuse of military power.

Nonetheless, we are in the situation that we are in, and I think for our country to salvage any honor whatsoever, we must clean up the complete mess we've made. We can't pull out of the country leaving behind another Vietnam-like situation, that would just be a disaster. We must learn from our history that when we are involved in an undeclared, unjust, war, we have to make all efforts to leave the area with some sort of resolution. Otherwise, men like Pol Pot have their way, and our military is severely hampered (by lack of public trust) in the process. (See Carter, Jimmy & Hostage Crisis, Iran)

This is why I believe that despite my complete lack of confidence in him, Bush must be allowed to try and finish the mess he's made. But, even if I'm wrong about that, the US congress still has no business whatsoever in telling American Servicemen (and women, unfortunately) that they aren't really sure if they are willing to give them the supplies and reinforcements they need and deserve. If the House wants to rebuke Bush, they should impeach him, or censor him, or do what they actually have Constitutional authority to do, defund the entire war.

But no, these gutless resolutions and half hearted statements are just a political game to the Democrats to hand Hillary and Barrack the white house in '08. Our troops deserve better than to be political pawns in their game. What Congress has done here is down right stupid, and frankly appalling. They need to be rebuked. Please call them, and, if you aren't in support of the war, that's even better, tell them that.

I think we can all agree that our misused troops are under enough stress and trials already (such is life in war, especially in unjust, undeclared war). They don't need Congress to treat them the same way the idiotic left treated the Vietnam vets when they came home.

To find out who your Congressman, Senators and Assemblymen are, click here.

Think Ethanol is a good idea?

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:27:00 +0000

Go read this article.

Jim Doyle must go

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:39:00 +0000

Someone has got to say it, so it might as well be me. I am officially calling out both the Republicans in the State Assembly of Wisconsin and Citizens for Responsible government (the activist group, not just citizens in general).

For the Assembly, it is time to impeach Jim Doyle. Amongst the articles of impeachment we can include the blatant attacks using state organizations against Doyle opponent Mark Green. Attacks such as the coordinated assault on Green's campaign money. The articles can also include extremely shady dealings with State Contracts, one of which Doyle is still under Federal investigation for, and for which a member of his staff has gone to prison. Then there's the obvious political kick backs to his campaign supporters, namely the Indian Casino's.

However, there are two actions Jim Doyle came out with this week in his bi-annual budget that absolutely seal the deal for impeachment. They seal the deal because they are about as illegal as can be. Of course with Jim Doyle, these actions are taxes, specifically the new tax on Oil Companies, and a tax on Internet purchases. Although it is not illegal to tax a specific industry, like Oil, Doyle has proposed crossing two legal lines. 1) The oil companies are not based in Wisconsin, and this tax is on general profits, not simply sales in Wisconsin. This essentially amounts to taxation without representation, as well as taxation of one state on funds belonging to a private company in another state. 2) Doyle has demanded that the oil companies not pass along the tax to consumers, and has proposed a gestapo like tactic of forcing the oil companies to submit to inspections of their books in order to stop the tax from being passed along. This is a clear violation of the fourth amendment.

As for the tax on Internet purchases: It has been held to legal reasoning that sales between two parties in different states cannot be taxed except perhaps by the federal government, because there is no clear standard as to who is liable for paying the tax (the seller or the buyer). The federal courts have upheld in many cases that it is a violation of Federal law to tax interstate purchases.

But Jim Doyle doesn't care, and frankly, I don't think enough Republicans do either. Which is why Jim Doyle will not only not be impeached, but he is bound to get at least half of the new 1.75 billion (and growing) NEW (as opposed to TOTAL) tax burden he wants to put on Wisconsin. So tell me, why are their two parties again? Not a dimes worth of difference I tell you, not a dime!

So then there's the Citizens for Responsible Government. Now, I have to give these folks credit, they have successfully recalled a number of corrupt Wisconsin Politicians. Lately they've gone after city councilmen and mayors of small towns. There's bigger fish to fry, guys.

The great thing about recall efforts, as opposed to impeachment, is that you can recall anyone for anything, depending of course on getting enough people to sign the recall petition. We'll see what happens, but considering that Doyle has just sent the most over-bloated state budget in the history of the state, and it includes a huge new tax burden on an already over taxed state, I think the time has come to get rid of Jim Doyle.

Citizens for Responsible Government. . . if you're reading this, sign me up to circulate petitions.

The Minimum Wage

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 02:36:00 +0000

Meet Jack. Jack is a regular guy. He's married, with two kids. Jack likes to work for himself, so like a few million other Americans, Jack opened up a small business. For Jack, it was a local pizza parlor in his small town.

Jack hired 7 people to work at his pizza parlor. Two college guys to make deliveries, three high school kids to make pizza's, a local retiree to answer the phone and take orders, and a waitress going to night school. For the most part, these folks work hard and keep Jack's business humming while Jack is able to meet with suppliers, do paperwork, oversee the quality of his product, serve his customers, and deal with the 10,000 other things business owners perpetually have on their minds. Jack's workers work hard for him, despite only making minimum wage, but no one puts in more hours than Jack. 60-70 a week at least!

Jack is upset because the Democrat's, the supposed party of the little guy (like our friend Jack here), wants to mandate to Jack how much he must pay his workers. And the president (of the party supposedly for the business guy, like our friend Jack here) thinks this is a great idea. This is a problem for Jack.

You see, Jack runs a good business. The townsfolk like his pizza's, they like the level of service they get, they like that Jack keeps his restaurant clean and tidy. But despite his best efforts, the market Jack sells too is still limited. Every town has a pizza place, some have two or three, and no one wants to drive into Jack's small town just to eat Jack's pizza when they have a local businessman to support on their own.

So Jack is able to make, after his other costs, about $50 an hour. His 7 employees each make $5 an hour (the minimum wage) which leaves Jack with $15 an hour to pay himself. (7 people x $5 = $35. . . . $50 - $35 = $15 left over)

Now with the minimum wage being raised to $7 an hour, Jack is forced to make some tough choices. Let's look at those choices:

1. Jack could absorb the costs. However, that leaves Jack with exactly $1 per hour to take home to his wife and kids. Heck! Jack's employees are making more than that. Plus, what if that Gas station across the street starts selling Pizza? Certainly Jack will lose some profits from that, especially at lunch time. What if Jack only makes $48 an hour after that? Now Jack isn't being paid, and he can't make payroll for his employees.

2. Jack could raise prices. True, Jack could raise his prices so he absorbs the extra $14 an hour, but seeing as how people are not made of money, Jack will most certainly lose some business, and anger a portion of his remaining customer base. What if his remaining customer base is so angry they start driving to the next town to buy Pizza, or decide Tacos are a better meal for the price? What if he loses such a big portion of his customer base that Jack breaks even, or even loses money?

3. Jack could lower costs. Now on the surface this seems like a great idea! All Jack has to do is buy cheaper pizza dough, cheaper pepperoni, cheaper cheese, cheaper tomato sauce, etc.! Oh heck, while he's at it, he'll start buying cheaper mops, cheaper pizza boxes, cheaper bathroom soap. . . Now, of course, Jack is always looking for a bargain, and minimum wage hike or not, if he can find a good product cheaper, he's going to go for it. But, to save Jack $14 a hour, he's going to have to do more than find a bargain. He's going to have to make his product, over all, cheaper, but still charge the same amount. It dawns on Jack that making cheaper pizzas would probably result in lower quality. Perhaps some of his customers won't notice, but chances are, that some will notice, and those people are usually the people who buy Jack's Pizza because it is of good quality. Will they continue to buy it if it's of bad quality? Probably not. So in the end, Jack won't save as much money as he thought anyway.

4. Jack could lay off a worker or two. Sadly, this seems to be the only conclusion left for Jack. But now, instead of doing his books the hour before he opens, he has to make dough, something one of the workers he laid off used to do. Now Jack has to work a longer day and get the same work done. And that former dough maker? Well she is out of a job, it probably doesn't make much of a difference since she was kid in high school still living at home, but Jack still feels awful about it. She was good kid who worked hard. She deserved better than a pink slip as a thank you from Jack. If they raise the minimum wage again, the person fired next will probably be the waitress. But Jack really doesn't want to do that. She's just a nice girl trying to put herself through school, trying to do the right thing. But it's either that or go out of business. What's Jack to do?

But this option isn't just an option of hard choices of who to fire, it also effects Jacks business. Suddenly the phone is ringing more because there's one less person to answer. The customers are a bit more restless wondering where Jack's smiling face is to greet them. . . he's in the back, doing a job he used to pay someone else to do. The portions are a bit out of control, and are driving up his costs, but Jack can't manage that as closely these days, there are orders to be filled, and less people to fill them.

Sadly, many American business owners are soon to be faced with these choices. Tell me, all you who support minimum wage increases, and minimum wage in general, what choice would you make? What choice do you think helps the economy in general? What choice is fair to Jack and gives him a real chance to succeed?

Evil at work, literally

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:18:00 +0000

Just go read this article. It is absolutely disgusting.

OK, did you read it? Great. Now I want you to go print it out and carry it with you everywhere you go. Why? Because the next time you hear someone extol the virtues of Free Market Economics**, I want you to pull out this article and read it to them like you were reading the riot act. This my friends, is what free market economy policies will bring you. Jesus said that you can judge a tree from it's fruit, and this is some bad fruit.

Some interesting notes about the article:

"Schmidt acknowledged that the stewardry program was similar in many ways to slavery, but explained that just as "compassionate conservatism" has polished the rough edges on labor relations in industrialized countries, full stewardry, or "compassionate slavery," could be a similar boon to developing ones."

Compassionate slavery!!??!?

"One conference attendee asked what incentive employers had to remain as stewards once their employees are too old to work or reproduce. Schmidt responded that a large new biotech market would answer that worry.

*SHUDDER*

"Throughout the comments by Schmidt and his three co-panelists, which lasted 75 minutes, Schmidt's stewardee . . . remained standing at respectful attention off to the side."

The guy brought a slave with him!!?? GOOD GRIEF!

**Not that I don't think people shouldn't be free to trade and buy as they see fit. My problems with the free-market theory is that under the theory, everything, and I do mean everything, is reduced to a commodity. There are just somethings that aren't commodities, including people. Markets should be free, but let's not make everything a market as the WTO seems to advocate.

Prediction Accountability

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:25:00 +0000

Ok, so here's my report card:

Result predictions:

Rick Santorum Loses: Correct!
Senate, GOP retains control: Wrong!
Congress, GOP retains control: Wrong!
Mark Foley's seat remains GOP: Wrong!
Tom Delay's seat remains GOP: Wrong!
WI Governor: Wrong!
WI Attorney General: Correct!
WI Marriage Amendment: Correct!
WI 5th Senate: Correct!

That makes me 4-5.

Now for the margin predictions for the results predictions I got right:
WI Attorney General "Van Hollen gains 60% or more": Wrong!
Marriage Amendment "55% or more": Correct!

That makes me 1 - 1.

Over all I'm 5-6, not too bad, but not great either.

Predictions and Endorsements 2006

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:04:00 +0000

Here it is folks, the big bold 2006 electoral predictions.

Ok, some background. I pay close attention to politics. I read a lot of the main stream media and am a daily listener to Rush Limbaugh (nationally) and Mark Belling (locally here in Milwaukee). I check out a number of websites about a number of issues. I consider myself pretty well informed. So these predictions should be right on the money . . . right? :-)

National:

US Congress: Senate

The conventional wisdom this year has been that the Republicans have no chance at all at retaining their majority in the house (more on this later). Thus, a great deal of talk has surrounded the Senate and if the GOP can retain it's hold there. Well, let me first say that if the GOP does hold on to the Senate, it won't make much of a difference. The GOP led Senate has acted almost exactly like the Democrats would anyway. I have never seen a party more full of hypocrites than the Republicans. Democrats think they are running a good campaign nationally, and in some cases will probably defeat incumbent Republicans.

For example, in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum's political career is over. Trust me.

On the other hand, the Republicans seem to be running some of their strongest candidates in the Senate races. Michael Steele comes to mind from Maryland. I think he's going to win.

Bottom line: The Democrats may pick up a seat or two, probably from conservatives in trouble, conservatives in battleground states (i.e. Santorum in PA), or conservatives in liberal states (kinda like Tom Daschle in reverse). However, at the end of the day Republicans will retain control.

US Congress: House

This has been the darling and crown jewel of the Democrat's goals for 2006. It seems that since Kerry's loss in 2004, they have had their eye on the house and the GOP's slim 15 seat margin. I must commend the Dems, they have run very effective campaigns to regain control. Also, the Republicans have done nothing to help themselves. Be it Abortion, Immigration, Government size and spending, or anything else generally on conservatives minds, the Republican led government has failed. . . . . . miserably.

The one beacon of hope (and it is a dim beacon at that) has been the house. At least we can say that they stood up for common sense when it came to immigration. Which of course led to nothing at all getting done. However, I'll take no law over bad law any day.

Then there's the scandals. Tom Delay, Mark Foley, Ney in Ohio, Thomas Reynolds in NY, and the complete moron in Hassert. I have never been so happy in my life to not be a Republican. The GOP would do well to sit back and allow Ron Paul to be speaker and lead an actual conservative movement in that house.

So what's going to happen? Ok, first of all dispel any notions that the seats formerly belonging to Mark Foley and Tom Delay are going to be "free pickups" for the Democrats. Republicans may be angry, and it might be a closer election in those areas, but the Republican dominated voters in those areas aren't stupid. They know who to write-in and they will.

Republicans are the best closers in the game of politics and have a great get out the vote effort. However, this year, that effort is countered by an angry and well motivated Democrat base.

Bottom line: The Republicans are going to lose. . . . but, they will not lose control of the house. It is going to be awful close though. The Republicans may end up losing control of the house after the elections through some "horse trading". Look for heightened "horse trading" if Dennis Hassert remains speaker.

Wisconsin

Governor:

So we have Jim Doyle, one of the most corrupt and dirty politicians in the entire history of politics, and Mark Green, one of the worst campaigners in the history of politicians. Seriously, how can you be trailing in polls when the governor is in the news everyday with a new corruption scandal and then gets on TV and lies about it.

I'd love to comment on this campaign, but honestly, the only thing the two candidates want to talk about is how bad the other guy is. Tell me, where does Mark Green stand on abortion? How pro-life is he? Where is he on property rights? What does Jim Doyle plan to do with, well anything??

I'm not endorsing either one of these candidates, but I'll say this, I hope Doyle loses. I don't like Green, but I don't think he's gonna screw up the state as bad as Doyle will. There are two other candidates on the ballot for Gov, but neither one are worth voting for. Constitution Party candidate Jhred Hamby and whatever space alien the Green Party found.

See, I'd love to vote for Hamby, but seriously, I have to write the guy in. This isn't like in 2004 when I had to write in Peroutka for President because the inept Constitution party here forgot to file some paperwork. No, Hamby screwed this up on his own. Honestly, if you're not serious about campaigning, how serious can you be about governing?

Do you hear that? That's the CP leadership sending me an e-mail criticizing me for not helping Hamby. Save it guys, you know my e-mail now and you knew it then. Still, I never received a ballot access petition to sign, nor did I receive an answer to any of my e-mails to the campaign. Save it fellas, and start to face the fact that you aren't serious about what you do, because if you are, you should step aside for the good of the party and let someone who can find their backside with two hands and a flashlight run the party.

Bottom line: Mark Green wins. Doyle just has too much against him. It'll be close, but I know Democrats that just plain hate Doyle and what he's done to the party.

Attorney General:

The Republicans have JB Van Hollen and the Democrats have Kathleen Falk.

This is what it boils down to with no bias at all (seriously). Van Hollen is a lawyer with a great reputation who is funding his own campaign and is generally well liked and regarded by many in Wisconsin. Falk is a decent politician from one of the most liberal counties in the United States who is running as an ultra liberal candidate. Oh, and she's never prosecuted anyone in her life

Ok, back to the bias. Falk is so desperate that she is outright lying about Van Hollen in her TV ads. Even prominent members of her own party are saying she's gone to far and should apologize.

Van Hollen wins easily. Look for 60% or more. He'll hold this job as long as he wants it, as long as he doesn't screw it up.

JB Van Hollen is one of only two candidates I'm endorsing this year. He is as pro-life as they come and is strong on balancing the liberties of the law abiding citizens, while still being tough on crime. He's not perfect, but he's a good guy who I think is trying to do good in his position. Most of all, I think he truly understands the purpose of government.

The Marriage Amendment:

Ok, first off, if you are against gay marriage, vote yes. If you want gay marriage to be allowed, vote no. Got that? Because the homo's in this state would like you to think otherwise. Which brings me to my first point. . . .

You know you are desperate when you resort to flat out lies and deception. (See Falk, Kathleen) Wisconsin doesn't want gay marriage, and it never did. This amendment is good because it makes sure that a judge can't make the decision that about 4 million Wisconsinites don't want to make. The 1 million or so people who don't want to ban gay marriage know they are on the losing end of the deal. So they have to lie and deceive to get their way.

Well, they're gonna fail, for the 21st time in our nations history. This amendment passes easily. 55% or more. Let us never forget the tactics used here though.

Wisconsin's 5th Senate District:

America's best state senator, Tom Reynolds, is trying his best to hang on to his seat. He is an ultra-conservative Republican running against Jim Sullivan, a democrat.

Ok, I could go into Sullivan's alleged double voting and whatnot, but I don't think the case is necessarily proven. However, it is interesting and has yet to be explained. And the botched cover up by the city clerk in one of the places he supposedly voted in 2000 does lend the story credibility.

However, I'd rather talk about the absolute shameless campaign against Tom Reynolds. His opponents are throwing the kitchen sink at the guy, and you know what, Reynolds is still holding on. There's been allegations of him abusing his children, there's been flat out lies about him stealing campaign funds, the local leftist rag (The Shepard Express) never seems to miss an opportunity to make off color jokes about the guy, the local leftist official paper (The Milwaukee Urinal-Sentinel) just loves to paint a negative picture of Reynolds every time they can. And let's not even get into the columnists Spivak and Bice and they're little personal obsession with Reynolds. (They must have a secret altar in their basement or something, it's like two smitten high school girls with their first crush. Sick really)

And the independent groups! Oh my! If you listen to them, you'd think Reynolds was Hitler back from the dead. I mean GOD FORBID that Tom propose a road system or propose that perhaps we should have some say when our taxes go up.

You see it boils down to this . . . They hate Reynolds for two reasons:

1. He is a Christian. Tom Reynolds feels that Jesus is Lord of all things, especially him. And he governs in such a manner.

2. He actually stands for something. What does Jim Sullivan want to accomplish in Madison? I know I know!!! He wants to accomplish becoming a State Senator and replacing Tom Reynolds. Taxes? Education? Roads? Don't ask, because Jim Sullivan has no idea. Tom Reynolds on the other hand, now he knows exactly what he wants to accomplish. Lower Taxes through tax accountability. Reduce crime by instituting the death penalty. Help businesses by keeping the minimum wage (which will actually increase wages in the long run. . . . it's complicated). See, real, tangible ideas, and moreover, real tangible ideas that speak to real tangible people. Democrats, and politicians in general, HATE THAT.

One last thing: It is despicable how the Republican party of WI has abandoned Reynolds. Here's a true conservative, an independent thinker who cares about getting stuff done for the people (not the special interests) of Wisconsin. . . . and the GOP abandons him. Remember that the next time you think they are the lesser of two evils.

Tom Reynolds is the second person I endorse in this election. Mr. Reynolds is one of the few I know that really truly can be called a statesman. He understands government's purpose and boundaries, and most importantly, God's sovereignty over it. Mr. Reynolds is exactly what we need in every office of Government. My only regret is that I could not do more for the man.

Nonetheless, I think he is going to lose. May God grant him victory, but I do not think the votes are there. Politicians who face this kind of concentrated effort against them rarely win. It is a shame.

However, if Reynolds does win, the man can write his ticket almost anywhere in Wisconsin. To win in that district, against those odds, without compromising your position??? That is such a great thought, I almost don't want to corrupt it by thinking about it. Tom Reynolds for Governor in 2010. I got giddy just typing that.

So there you go, my predictions and endorsements. May God be glorified.

A Christian's Voting Philosophy

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:41:00 +0000

1. Stop thinking about the lesser of two evils.

The Bible admonishes us to have nothing to do with evil, lesser or otherwise. (Psalm 26, Psalm 34, Psalm 37, Psalm 97, Psalm 141, Proverbs 3, Proverbs 8, Romans 12, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonian's 5, and I could go on and on and on)

So when we vote for an evil, even if it a lesser evil than the other guy, I think we have done something as Christians, that Christ has told us specifically not to do. This doesn't mean that we have to agree with everything a candidate believes, but it does mean that we have a responsibility before God to vote for those people who will do their best to glorify the Lord. God receiving Glory is (or should be) our main concern.

Also, thinking purely pragmatically here, voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us literally NOWHERE for the past 50 or so years. It's said that insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

2. Stop thinking that you have to vote, or have to vote in every race.

Sometimes, their is no one to vote for that will not do evil. If your choices are a communistic democrat, or a socialistic republican, that's not really much of a choice. We should not be forced to deny our Lord and vote for evil simply because we feel compelled to cast a vote.

3. Understand the purpose of government.

God has a LOT to say about Government's purpose and place on this earth. I think it boils down to this. Government is a tool of dominion over people for the purposes of protecting innocent lives, punishing evil doers, and establishing civil justice. That is it's purpose. It's not to make sure your seat belt is buckled, or that you are educating your children correctly.

Why is this important? Well think of it like this, it's like using a wrench to turn a screw. Government is a tool, and like any tool, it must be used properly. When we make decisions for people to execute the offices of government, we must choose those who understand it's purpose. Those who don't understand Government's purpose will misuse it and chaos ensues.

4. Develop a test to evaluate candidates.

Being in government lends itself to a lust for power and prestige. I like to look for humble candidates that understand that their role is to give glory to God within their position of power. Jesus wears a crown as king of creation, and with that crown come certain rights. He has a right to rule over this nation. Our rulers and candidates to be rulers should remember that. (Read Romans 13)

Also, I make it my personal policy to never vote for any candidate anywhere that is not 100% pro-life with no exceptions or compromises. Why? Because if a candidate doesn't understand that a child is the most innocent among us, and in most need of our protection, then they fail to grasp the idea that their role is to use the power of their office to protect that innocent life, seek justice for the wrong done to him/her, and punish those who have committed the evil.

If, instead, the candidate sees the pre-born child as something instead of someone, or someone who's death is tolerable under certain circumstances; the consequences of such a stance have literally no end. At what point is the life worth defending? What is more evil than baby murder that deserves punishment? If the most innocent among us are refused justice, who shall receive justice, and on what merits?

From there, you can go on to other issues the Bible speaks about, namely Liberty and Property. These issues tend to be a bit nuanced, so I can't necessarily give you a "litmus test", but I encourage you to ask the questions on almost every "non-life" policy. "Does that stance unnecessarily impede on my liberty, or my rights to property?"

5. Don't expect to be happy the day after election day.

This world is full of evil and evil men will ultimately rule it. The society gets rulers that reflect it. The way to change your rulers is to change your people, not to vote for the lesser of two evils. If you want Christ glorified in your capitals, glorify Him at home and in your life. Preach His word to all who will listen, and to some who will not. A revival that only God can bring will do more to change this nation than a compromising political party or candidate.

Bill Clinton goes Bonkers!!!

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:18:00 +0000

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215445,00.html

Click on the video link in the above article and enjoy.

This folks, is what happens when you fail in 8 years to do anything but expose yourself as a corrupt President who was intent on doing nothing useful for the country. Ah, where would comedy be without Slick Willy?

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:22:00 +0000

For 4 years, Jim Doyle has sold public policy for campaign donations, had members of his administration go to jail for breaking federal law, been under investigation by the feds for corruption, and illegally influenced the state elections board to rule in a certain way so as to make his campaign easier.

He criticizes Mark Green for taking PAC money while in congress then transferring it to his governor campaign. However, he failed to criticize his opponent, Tom Barrett, in 2002 for doing the exact same thing. It goes beyond a mere double standard for criticism. It was revealed this week that Doyle's lawyer lobbied the Elections board to make the decision (the wrong decision mind you) that Green's actions were illegal. In this lobbying, which took place through e-mail (a PDF of the email), the lawyer commented that it would help the Doyle campaign to make the decision and appeared to speak to the elections board as if they were in on a fix.

But Doyle doesn't stop there, he decides to run TV ads claiming Green is dirty and took illegal money. His special interest groups are also picking up on the theme and trying to smear Green as being a Washington insider who reeks of corruption of Enron, Tom Delay, Haliburton, Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, Satan, Hitler, and whatever else they can throw in there. Of course they offer no proof of all of this.

Yet, Green, who has mountains of proof to show Doyle and his cronies are corrupt to the gills, seems content to say nothing about the subject. This is typical of the type of politician Mark Green is. A 'believe in nothing firm', moderate Republican who seems he'll do whatever makes the most people happy whether it's right or wrong. Nonetheless, Jim Doyle has a lot of nerve pointing the finger at Green and calling him corrupt.

I do not support Mark green in this campaign (he is way too soft on abortion and other important subjects) but he at least deserves a fair fight to win the election. Doyle, in typical Democrat style, is far from interested in making the fight fair.

Bottom line, Doyle is corrupt. If you don't believe me, go to www.jsonline.com and type Jim Doyle into the search engine. Half the stories you'll read will be about something not right in the administration. like this one . . . or this one

You know what they say, when you point the finger, there's three fingers pointing right back at you. Here's hoping Jim Doyle heads to a state prison rather than the Governor's Mansion.

More Evidence that the War in Iraq is a Giant Waste of Time:

noreply@blogger.com (That Crazy Christian) — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 06:06:00 +0000

This article from the NY Times details the reaction to an intel committee report that claims the war in Iraq has actually caused Terrorism to increase rather than decrease in the time we've been at war with Iraq.

Disclaimer: The article is from the NY Times, and thus is slanted to the left. I tried to find a Fox News report on the report, but they have not published anything I could find. Futhermore, the GOP has not fully responded to the report and most of what you hear comes from the Democrat side or from John McCain. Nonetheless, it is what it is and I think it at least deserves consideration.

Remember the reasons we went into Iraq. They harbored terrorists, they had WMD's, it was important that we establish a "democratic nation" (not a republic) in the Middle East to be the shining beacon of light to all the people there on the hopes that they would choose freedom instead of fascism. If you take these goals at face value, this whole war has been a miserable failure.

It's crystal clear, the war in Iraq is not a part of the "war on terror". On the contrary, it seems to be helping our enemies in the war of terror.