Thursday, July 03, 2008

"Evangelicals" Fear Man Rather Than The God They SAY They Worship: Daniel would roll over in his grave if he saw this cowardly fear of mere man

"Evangelicals" cave out of fear of the opposition again, according to a news report by Worldnetdaily:

Dozens of Christian leaders meeting in Denver have concluded they should "get behind Sen. John McCain even if they didn't like everything about him" because the alternative, presumptive Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama, actually could oversee the criminalization of Christianity, according to a report.

"The alternative is so bad we must support John McCain," Phyllis Schlafly, founder and president of Eagle Forum, told the group, according to the bulletin.

Jeremiah 17:5, “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord.’”

Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel and dean of the law school at Liberty University..."Our shared conservative evangelical values and our concern about judicial activism compelled us to unite around the presidential candidate who most closely aligns with us," Staver said. "That candidate is obviously Sen. John McCain. United we will move forward to advance our values in the short- and long-term. We are committed to a transgenerational, multiethnic and multiracial conservative movement."

Conservative? Evangelical? HOW? See how he has admitted to being an adulterous flanderer.

Joseph Farrar of WND reminds us, "McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to the Supreme Court. He also, as is his nature, conspired with Democrats in the Senate to block approval of Bush's most conservative jurists."

Back to the Worldnetdaily article:

In his own commentary, Strang, whose publishing empire includes Charisma magazine and others, noted he supported Gov. Mike Huckabee in the primaries."From my perspective as a conservative Christian he was the perfect candidate – strong on the issues important to me yet an effective leader in Arkansas who is articulate, passionate and caring for those less fortunate.

"But now I'm supporting Sen. John McCain. I've long admired him as a great American hero. On the important issues I believe he's right on. However, he hasn't cozied up to the so-called religious right. But that's not a problem to me. Too many leaders in the Christian conservative movement wait to see who asks for their support instead of being principled. At least McCain is principled," he wrote.

"The fact is that most Christians will vote for McCain because of his stand against abortion and his support of traditional marriage," he said.

Traditional marriage? Principles? According to Arizona Central:

He had an affair while married to his wife, Carol, who not only saw him through his five years as an POW, but sustained massive injuries from a car accident while he was in Viet Nam, with his current second wife, Cindy. He's admitted to having various affairs over the years.

But already the McCains’ marriage had begun to fray. ‘John started carousing and running around with women,’ said Robert Timberg [Annapolis graduate, Robert Timberg, who wrote The Nightingale’s Song, a bestselling biography of McCain and four other graduates of the academy].

"In February 1980, less than a year after he met Cindy, McCain petitioned a Florida court to dissolve his marriage to Carol, calling the union "irretrievably broken."

McCain has acknowledged that he had girlfriends during this time, without going into details.

Some friends blame his dissatisfaction with Carol, but others give some credence to her theory of a mid-life crisis.

Joseph Farrar of Worldnetdaily, in his commentary on what's wrong with McCain, says in part"

For starters, McCain has been, for a very long time, dead wrong on immigration and border policy. He is still dead wrong.

In 2004, voters in his own state passed Proposition 200, requiring proof of citizenship before someone can vote or participate in state giveaway programs. Despite opposition led by McCain, the measure was approved by 56 percent of the vote, with close to 50 percent of Hispanics approving it.

He's not only out of step with Americans on this issue, he's out of step even with his own constituency in Arizona.

He has been a leader in the amnesty cause in the Senate, partnering with Ted Kennedy on the bill's language and sponsorship.

He also led opposition to building the border fence.

But what about judges, you ask? Won't a McCain presidency give Americans a chance to reclaim the Supreme Court in the name of the Constitution and original intent?

The evidence is far from conclusive, given that McCain voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer to the Supreme Court. He also, as is his nature, conspired with Democrats in the Senate to block approval of Bush's most conservative jurists.

He gave us McCain-Feingold – the worst legislative attack on the First Amendment in decades. This law actually restricts political speech prior to elections – a clearly unconstitutional approach to so-called "campaign finance reform."

He's a globalist – standing strong even today behind agreements like NAFTA that are ravaging Third World economies, eliminating jobs in the U.S. and chipping away at U.S. sovereignty and the power of the people.

Need I remind everyone it was John McCain who nearly single-handedly stripped our troops of the interrogation tools they needed to defeat the enemy and prevent attacks on innocent Iraqis and our own soldiers? More than anyone else in American politics, McCain led the fight to stop coercive interrogations, an absolutely essential weapon in our arsenal in the conduct of this war and future wars.

McCain calls it torture. But it is not. Coercive interrogations are a necessity of any successful war campaign. When he stopped them with his legislative campaign, his actions not only prolonged the war and led to higher casualties for American troops and innocent Iraqis, he also ensured any future war will be far most costly in U.S. lives.

The question is in either case, what principles does McCain have or not have for the Dems to consider him an option? He's a RINO and has been for years now. NY Times says:

What Mr. McCain almost never mentions are two extraordinary moments in his political past that are at odds with the candidate of the present: His discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket.

There are wildly divergent versions of both episodes, depending on whether Democrats or Mr. McCain and his advisers are telling the story. The Democrats, including Mr. Kerry, say that not only did Mr. McCain express interest but that it was his camp that initially reached out to them. Mr. McCain and his aides counter that in both cases the Democrats were the suitors and Mr. McCain the unwilling bride.

So McCain:

Is an adulter

Voted FOR two liberal US Supreme Court justices

Tried to BLOCK the conservative justices from being voted IN

Sides with Kennedy, Feingold, and other big DNC leaders

Has considered leaving the GOP for the DNC

Softens coercive interrogations to get information out of our enemies

Is chipping away at the sovereignty of the US

Believes in amnesty for illegal aliens

Opposes building a fence on our borders to deal with the millions of illegals aliens

Opposed requiring proof of citizenship before doleing out citizens' hard earned money--against his own constituants in AZ

So, WHAT principles does his man have? HOW does he support "traditional marriage" when he's got a track record, by his OWN admission, to being an ADULTERER? Is Strang serious? Is this the "values" that runs "Charisma Magazine" etc?


NWProdigal said...

LIke you, I am not at all happy with our choices this year. The RNC and McCain keep begging me for money, trying to guilt-trip me into donating to them to prevent the liberal democrats from getting in. My opinion: the Republicans have failed, miserably, to set a standard of government beyond giving people money (which is just a reverse bribe) and supporting much the same agenda, outside of some moral issues, as the Dems.

There has been NO progress in making abortion illegal and a crime, NO progress regarding solving the mental and health care issues that plague us all, NO progress towards making us non-dependent on enemy nations for our very lifeblood, ad infinitum.

I, like you, WILL NOT vote for McCain based on the principle (if that's what you want to call it) of choosing the lesser of two evils. There is no such thing in politics! I am convinced that our leaders are, with a very few exceptions, corrupt bureaucrats who are in the office for personal gain alone. Of course, this means I will not vote for Obama either.

Many Christians have been convinced that they MUST vote for someone! I disagree. Christians need to remember, as Paul said, we are not fighting agains flesh and blood or other humans, but against unseen powers and the god of this world. Believers in the past had no choice of who ruled over them, but dealt with whatever God allowed. I do not believe in boycotting companies that advertise to homosexuals and try to sell anyone their goods. That is a distraction from our real purpose which is to show love and compassion in Christ's name.

So, who will I vote for? Maybe Ron Paul or maybe not at all. If Christians had real faith, they'd leave this entire thing up to God and not have so much faith in the efforts of man, which is all the Religious Right are. Religious but not Christlike!

Denise said...

I agree nw. Professing Christians even say to vote for the "lesser evil" to make it a vote "against" the "more evil" candidate. To that I say, FOOLISHNESS! HOGWASH!

When a person votes FOR someone, they are putting their name next to that person, FOR that person. There's no such thing as a box that says "against Obama". When we vote for a candidate, its FOR someone. The exception is for propositions where we get to vote NO.

Voting for a "lesser" evil is still voting FOR evil, which I will not do. These are the same Christians who say "sin is sin" and make no distinctions, yet they make a distinction between evil.


How Christians can vote for an immoral, duplicitous, adulterer is beyond me.