Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road? Depends On Who You Ask!

             

Shawn E. OSteen

Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he's a maverick!

BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.

JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road?

GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here.

DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?

BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.

AL GORE: I invented the chicken.

JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?

DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.

OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

ANDERSON COOPER: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.

PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.

DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.

GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.

BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heartwarming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2014, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2014. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.

ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

Bad "Christian" Conduct

"Lamestream calls for empathy, even outrage, for a First Amendment violation that's on par with all the abuse we've brought to your attention as Obama stomps on our Constitution," Palin wrote on her Facebook page after the Obama administration's FCC aborted plans to monitor the country's newsrooms. "You've IGNORED us, you've marginalized us, you've left us for 'destroyed.' But when Obama's boot is on YOUR neck you finally wake the h*ll up and cry foul? Good Lord."

~Breitbart

While she's right, she's wrong.

What I mean by that is this: she's right in her observation about the media (although some radio talk show hosts said that the media wouldn't mind the proposed FCC rule of content since most of them are on board with Obama---and therefore, such a ruling would get Fox and other "conservative" networks more in line with their agenda), she's wrong in how she said it.

Her words do not in any way reflect a Christ-centered heart nor fruit of the Spirit (self-control).

While I am appalled at the unlawful tactics of the Obama regime, and frankly it grieves me since my family came here on the Mayflower and I know the cost they paid for liberty and honor to God, her foul language and taking God's name in vain is sinful and uncalled for no matter the rage against the encroachment of our liberties.

If a professing Christian can't control their words on Facebook, they should get off.

Eph 5:3  But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4  and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 

Eph 5:15  Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, 

Jas 1:20  for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. 

Col 3:1  Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2  Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 

While we should as Christians, stand up for truth and righteousness and speak out against injustice, sin, and hypocrisy (all defined by Scripture of course), we should remember this world is not our home so the answer to our society's problems isn't a fleshly answer but a biblical one, and we should seek to obey the Lord in how we do it. Cussing isn't the way to do it whatsoever.

Biblical Christians are not pragmatists. We are biblicists. That means we don't believe that the ends justify the means. Rather we know that we are to seek God's ways and means because they are perfect, holy, and righteous. To be pragmatic means we seek the fastest way to resolve an issue. That's not God's way. Our eyes must be on the things that are above where Christ is seated, not on the temporary things of the earth.

But I say all of this with the qualification that I don't know if Palin is a true Christian. However, she does take the name and therefore must be evaluated by the biblical standard of Scripture.

Third Time MSNBC Slams Conservatives As Racists

MSNBC continues to slander Conservatives....And how they think by tweeting such vitriolic nonsense is "news" is beyond me. It's time for them to either grow up or get out.

*There was Joy Reid in December slamming Sarah Palin for having a Christmas tree in an old family Christmas photograph, wrong stating that the Bible teaches against Christmas trees.

*Then there was MSNBC's Mellisa Harris-Perry and panel who mocked Mtt Romney's family Christmas photo that included an adopted black grandbaby. As I mentioned in that article NY Daily News had reported:

"Daily Beast's Dean Obeidallah, also on the panel, chimed in that he thought the photo was "great." "It really sums up the diversity of the Republican Party and the RNC, where they have the whole convention and they find the one black person.""

*And now MSNBC came out tweeting that Conservatives wouldn't like the bi-racial Cheerios. Seriously.

Quote:

MSNBC’s official Twitter account deleted a tweet last night that suggested conservatives wouldn’t like a new Cheerios commercial featuring an interracial family set to air during the Super Bowl.

“Maybe the rightwing will hate it, but everyone else will go awww: the adorable new #Cheerios ad w/ biracial family,” read the tweet, which linked to an MSNBC.com story on the new ad.

msnbcVerified account‏@msnbc

Earlier, this account tweeted an offensive line about the new Cheerios ad. We deeply regret it. It does not reflect the position of msnbc.

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite 

• 425RETWEETS
• 96FAVORITES
• 

7:55 PM - 29 Jan 2014

msnbcVerified account‏@msnbc

We are deleting the earlier offensive tweet. It does not reflect msnbc's position and we apologize.

•  Reply 
•  Retweet 
•  Favorite 

• 290RETWEETS
• 101FAVORITES
• 

7:56 PM - 29 Jan 2014

End quote.

MSNBC is full of hatred, racism, and lies. Their tweet DID reflect their views. We're seeing consistent racism bellowing from their network, trying to pin Republicans or Conservatives as racist, when it's nothing short of a lie. Usually when people make such attacks it's because they themselves are the ones guilty of such a thing. You know, like when these liberals judge others for judging.

It's too late to apologize because this is their pattern of vitriolic, irrational behavior. The MO these days is, you can SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT just as long as you eventually make an "apology". Sorry, but fake apologies are just as bad because they are a lie. Repentance, that is, turning away from one thing toward something else (turning away from slander and to the truth), is what they need to do, but haven't. Slam and then apologize is their way of saying what they believe but without too much heat. But slandering a person or group's character with insults is not only wrong, not only not true journalism, but is just flat out immaturity.

MSNBC: grow up or get out of the "news" business. 

MSNBC's Joy Reid: fake theologian but real ignoramous

The snarky judging by Joy Reid proves yet again, the immature, anger, and ignorance of the Left as they mock another Republican's family Christmas photos. What's wrong with these liberal women? 



"The best part of this jaw-dropping display of ignorance from MSNBC’s Joy Reid on Christianity? It comes in a segment called — wait for it — “Pretenders”! Reid argues that Sarah Palin, whose latest book celebrates Christmas, was a hypocrite and a bad Christian because … she put up a Christmas tree! Why, the noted Biblical scholar Reid smirked, that’s a violation of Scripture..."

Then Hot Air shares the transcript of Reid's ignorant rantings, where she said in part:

"REID: Certain parts of the Bible also appear to preach against let’s say, I don’t know, Christmas trees. Here’s Jeremiah 10-10, it reads: 

“For the practices of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter. Like a scare crow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.”"

Hot Air continues:

"Did anyone at MSNBC bother to research this particular reference from Jeremiah before calling hundreds of millions of Christians idolaters? Did they even bother to read it for comprehension, or did they just do a search at Bible Gateway for “tree” to fit their preconceived argument?" .....

Quite obviously, Reid and her cohorts at MSNBC like to think of themselves as the smartest people in the room. Unfortunately, as Reid has demonstrated all week, they’re just pretenders.

End quote. 

As Noel Sheppard notes:

Update: Want to know what Reid also missed? Jeremiah is from the Old Testament written BEFORE Jesus was born and therefore BEFORE there were Christmas trees. So how could that section have been about someone and something that didn't exist yet?

Sadly, such logic eludes shills such as Reid.

End quote.

Let Me Get This Straight.....

So you can mock a photo of a white family holding a precious black baby and for saying the  father of two daughters is anti-women, and not lose your job, but if you say on your own time that homosexuality is sinful, you can (or at least others will demand it)?

Oh the hypocrisy.

**Update**

Harris-Parry apologized via twitter for her remark. However, Pia Glenn (whoever she is) has yet to apologize for her really hateful and immature remarks. MSNBC did not make any comment either for this racist and misandryism nor for Martin Bashir's crude attack on Sarah Palin by asking someone to deficate in her mouth. He later resigned but MSNBC never apologized.

If Harris-Perry is really a bi-racial woman who grew up with a white Mormon family, as she said in a tweet, you'd think she would've said something to her racist panel mates.

It's all fun and games to them, except when they are the butt of racial or gender "jokes".

There is no wisdom among that panel. Just immaturity and foolishness.

Obama Gaffes: Jacksonville, Charleston, and Savannah Are On the Gulf Coast

                                            

Someone tell Obama that Jacksonville,Georgia and Savannah are not on the Gulf Coast.

RUSH: Here's Obama on The Tonight Show Tuesday night and Leno said, "You mentioned infrastructure.  Why is infrastructure a partisan issue? I live in a town, the bridge is falling apart, it isn't safe.  How does that become Republican or Democrat? Why don't you just go fix the bridge?"

OBAMA:  I don't know. As you know, for the last three years, I've said, "Let's work together." Let's find a financing mechanism and let's go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. You know, the Panama Canal is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that’ll be finished in 2015. If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf, places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida, if we don't do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we'll lose jobs. Businesses won't locate here. So this is something that traditionally has been bipartisan. I mean, it used to be Republicans and Democrats, they love cutting those ribbons. [video clip here]

RUSH:  Now let me take a stab at this because I can answer this easily.  Of course the gaffe there is Obama saying, "Look, we have to deepen our ports all along the gulf, places like Charleston, South Carolina, which is on the Atlantic ocean.  Savannah, Georgia, on the Atlantic ocean, Jacksonville, Florida, on the Atlantic ocean.  None of these are on the Gulf. 

Now, you remember what grief Sarah Palin got when she said she could see Russia from her house.  You remember that?  And you remember how that statement, maybe at the top of the list, that statement from Sarah Palin was the primary means by which the media set out to destroy her, her intelligence, her credibility.  And here is Barack Obama, not knowing what he's talking about, sounding so sure of himself.  In fact, the AP has written about this and doesn't even mention the gaffe.  They are whitewashing it.  They have written a story that essentially praises Obama's brilliance for understanding that we need to deepen the ports. They don't even touch on the gaffe.  This kind of stuff genuinely ticks me off....

RUSH:  By the way, folks, just to remind you: Sarah Palin never, ever said that she could see Russia from her house.  Tina Fey said it on Saturday Night Live impersonating Palin, and it became popularly assumed by people that Palin actually said it.  She never said it.  Yet Tina Fey impersonating Palin saying that she could see Russia from her house became one of the primary reasons for Republicans to run around saying, "Well, this woman's not smart enough....

Republicans, Democrats, everybody bought that she said that. It's embarrassing. The closest Palin ever came to saying anything like this was that you can actually see Russia from land there in Alaska, which is true! You can see Russia from parts of Alaska.  She never said she could see it from her house. 

[Editor's Note:Check it out at Wikipedia. The small island is the US, the larger one is Russia.Images by Dave Cohoe.]

She never said it qualified her for foreign policy, which was part of the Tina Fey joke. Here we have a legitimate statement of gaffe proportions -- and, by the way, there were three or four of them on Leno and they're unremarked upon. The AP, in their effort to whitewash Obama's gaffe, actually added words to their report to cover for the guy.  The AP printed, quote, "If we don't deepen our ports along the Gulf (and in) places like..."

They added the words "and in," and they put them in parentheses, which means it's not a direct quote.  It's assumed.  But Obama didn't say "and in."  He said, "Our ports along the Gulf in places like..." They added the words "and in" and changed the whole thing. It's a whitewash, cover up.

~Rush Limbaugh

That's not the first time Obama said the SAME THING as even Obama apologizer Mediaite admits:

Quote:

July 25 Transcript via The White House:

“And then private companies came onboard here at Jaxport. They saw it as a good investment. And we’re building the same kind of partnerships across the country — especially, by the way, in some of these Gulf ports — Charleston, Savannah. And now, these ports are on track to be better prepared for those supertankers and their cargo loads ahead of schedule. “

That July speech also wasn’t the first time the President made such a reference. In remarks at an Atlanta, Georgia DNC event on May 19, the President said “Roads, bridges, ports all across the Gulf — I was down in Costa Rica meeting with the Central American Presidents, and I was reminded once again, Panama is revamping its canal; they’re going to be bringing in these mega-container cargo ships. And right now a bunch of those ships can’t dock in our ports all along the Gulf — Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana. And if we don’t revamp those, we’re going to lose business.”

End quote.

I think most people remember the constant criticizing of George W. Bush and his gaffes because the media used it to try to discredit Bush as a bumbling cowboy idiot from the backwaters of Texas (while he actually was a graduate of Yale University and got his MBA from Harvard, nor was he hopeless without a teleprompter). Also they hounded Dan Quayle (remember?), as Michelle Malkin noted according to News Busters:

Malkin's reax: "The parenthetical Obama Gulf gaffe rescue would be akin to putting an "(s)" after "potatoe" to cover for Dan Quayle." Exactly." 

More gaffes by Obama:

OBAMA:  Keeping our military strong means keepin' our families strong.  Michelle and vice ... president... uh... uh... eh... The, uh... Joe Biden's wife, Dr. Jill Biden, they've made this their mission.

RUSH:  Whew. Folks, that's not a gaffe.  He didn't remember her name, and that means probably that the teleprompter froze....

Obama on Leno, "The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident, unfortunately." Another gaffe. He did say that. I double checked this.  "The odds of dying in a terrorist attack are a lot lower than they are of dying in a car accident, unfortunately." Well obviously he's trying to say, "Eh, terrorism? It's no big deal. More people die in car crashes, unfortunately." 

He was trying to express solidarity with families who've lost people in car crashes, by acknowledging how terrible that is. (translated) "It's still terrible, very terrible. But terrorism is not nearly that bad." Infantile! In another gaffe, Obama said that Putin, Vladimir Putin,  used to head the KGB.  Putin did not head the KGB, never has.  Putin was a mid-level nobody there.  Putin was one of those guys in the KGB who was a climber. He was forever hoping, climbing that ladder, trying to get to the head spot.

But he never got there. 

He was a nobody.....

More Obama gaffes over the years:

OBAMA May 9, 2008: I've now been in 57 states?

OBAMA June 5, 2008:  You send a kid to the emergency room for a treatable illness like asthma. They end up taking up a hospital bed. You gave 'em treatment early, and they got some treatment, and a -- a breathalyzer or a in-hullator.

OBAMA April 4, 2009: I don't know the term is in Austrian.

OBAMA February 4, 2010: Navy corpse-man Christian Bouchard.

OBAMA February 4, 2010: Corpse-man Bouchard. 

OBAMA February 4, 2010: Corpse-man Bouchard. 

OBAMA May 26, 2008: On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today.

RUSH:  Corpse-man?  That last one, that was Memorial Day 2008. "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes," that means killed in action, "and I see many of them in the audience here today." He looked out and he saw the dead!  Which, of course, he didn't.  And, in each one of these, if the media was inclined to talk about, it would be, "You know he didn't mean that!  You know he didn't mean that. Come on.  You know he knows Biden's wife's name.  What are you talking about?

Well, one example I'm talking about is I have not drank the Kool-Aid.  I do not believe that Obama is smarter than anybody else.  I do not believe he has cut a new path and is a politician unlike any we've ever seen regarding his intellect.  I don't believe any of this hocus-pocus.  I didn't believe it when they said it about Hillary, Smartest Woman in the World. 

End quote. Source (includes links to the various newspapers who reported on these various things)

I don't know. Maybe the media is as ignorant (thanks to the HIGH standards of government schools) as Obama is.

Voting For the Lesser of Two Evils As A Christian? Read This

“The Devil With His Mask On”

Josh Craddock
Persuasive Speech
© February 5, 2009

“Yes, I would campaign for the NAZIs and cast my vote for Adolf Hitler.” These words shocked me as they came out of my friend’s mouth. What shocked me more was that this young man is a conservative homeschooled Christian. Why would such an intelligent individual not only admit he would vote for Hitler, but say it with pride? I believe the problem goes deeper than misguided logic and actually explains why conservatives lost the recent Presidential election.

Today, I will expose the implications of a mentality that has become pervasive within conservative Christian circles: the view that one must vote for the lesser of two evils. I will attempt to persuade you to instead choose a righteous path in every situation. Using the 2008 Presidential election as a case study, we will learn about the lesser of two evils philosophy. After that we will analyze and weigh its justifications, and finally we will look at what our moral responsibilities are and determine a plan of action.

During the recent Presidential election, Obama’s views on abortion were well known. His support of extremist pro-abortion groups, his pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, and even his support of infanticide were no secret. ("Obama's Abortion Extremism." Washington Post, Apr. 2008.)

John McCain’s views however, demonstrated a disconnect between his campaign rhetoric and his record as a Senator. Eight years after they released a report naming McCain’s presidential candidacy as a threat to the pro-life movement, ("How John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause." National Right to Life News Feb. 2000.) National Right to Life reversed its position when it became clear that McCain was the 2008 Republican frontrunner and gave him a “100% pro-life” rating. ("Pro-Life Senator John McCain." National Right to Life News. Oct. 2008.) If one only listened to McCain’s rhetoric and National Right to Life’s rating, we might be led to believe that he is pro-life. However, as we look at his record, we see that he is not.

In 2005, McCain voted to provide a third of a billion dollars to fund abortion in the cases of rape and incest, authorizing taxpayer funding for more than 300,000 abortions. (U.S. Senate. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 3010, As Amended). 27 Oct. 2005.) Through 2008, he continued his support for expanding Embryonic Stem Cell Research: the fatal experimentation and dissection of the tiniest boys and girls. ("McCain Says His Support Of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Unchanged." Medical News Today 27 Jan. 2008.) At the Saddleback Forum with Pastor Rick Warren, McCain claimed to believe that life begins at conception. (“Obama, McCain talk issues at pastor's forum." CNN 17 Aug. 2008.) Yet this is irreconcilable with his thirty year record of supporting and funding the wrongful killing of the innocent. It is clear that McCain was willing to lie in order to win our votes and we were all too ready to believe him.

Some of us did not know McCain’s pro-abortion record and voted for him in ignorance, but those of us who did justified our support for his candidacy by pointing to him as “the lesser of two evils.” We made political calculations, concluding that we had to support the pro-choice Republican in order to beat the more radically pro-choice Democrat! When did we forget that there are some issues, such as abortion, that are non-negotiable? When someone supports mass-murder, that person is automatically disqualified as a candidate that Christians can vote for with a clear conscience. Even if our candidate had won, we would have lost. So where then does this idea of “voting for the lesser of two evils” come from?

It certainly does not come from our Constitution. When citizens are obliged to support one person who doesn't represent them in order to stop another person who also doesn't represent them, they end up with a government that doesn't represent them. President John Quincy Adams enjoins us to “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”("John Quincy Adams Quotes." Think Exist Quotations. 05 Feb. 2009) Because of the “lesser of evils” mentality, voters have been manipulated into a system that effectively destroys the idea of a Republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Similarly, nowhere in the Bible does Christ say “do the lesser evil so that you might achieve good for my kingdom.” In fact, Paul warns us not to do a little evil in order to potentially achieve some future good when he says: “Why not say… ‘Let us do evil that good may result!’ Their condemnation is deserved.” (Romans 3:8. NIV.) Scripture is clear that moral considerations take precedence over political expedience.

The decision to vote for the “lesser evil” is primarily made out of fear. Fear of the devil with his mask off chases us into the arms of the devil with his mask on. But this fear is a bottomless abyss. A conservative in NAZI Germany during the 1930’s applying the “lesser of two evils” standard could say, “The Marxists are ahead of every other political party in the polls, so even though the NAZIs want to kill the Jews, I think the Marxists may end up killing more people than the NAZIs. Therefore, I will vote for Hitler.” History would eventually prove that assessment correct, since the NAZIs only murdered six million while the communists in Russia alone murdered more than twenty million. ("That abyss has no bottom." TheologyOnline. 19 Oct. 2008.) Of course we know that the German in our example could never be justified in supporting Hitler. But by the standard of fear, it is easy to see how even Christians like my friend would say that, in that situation, they would. When we no longer fear God and instead fear wicked men, what candidate wouldn’t we support, provided the alternative is worse? If our justification for supporting one evil is fear of a greater evil, then there is no depth of depravity and atrocity we will not support, as long as we fear a darker alternative. Voting for the lesser of two evils abandons the immovable moral standard of righteousness and replaces it instead with a shifting foundation of moral relativism and situational ethics.

Christ’s standard requires that we fear no one but God. Matthew 10:28 exhorts us to,“fear not them which kill the body… but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28. KJV.) Is it truly such a terrifying thought to consider what our country would be like if one million Christians chose to reject the “lesser of two evils” philosophy and instead chose to honor God by refusing to do some evil that good might come of it? We aren't called to calculate which candidate will murder fewer innocents, we are called to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.” (Matthew 6:33. NKJV.)

So how, then, are we to seek it? We know that any person who advocates and defends the intentional killing of innocents is a conspirator and an accomplice to murder, and from his record we can see that John McCain was just such a man. We also know that Christians should not support mass murderers, even if they are afraid of other mass murderers.
Instead, our standard of behavior should be based upon trusting God. ("John McCain's Tragic Pro-Abortion Record." American Right to Life. 12 Oct. 2008. ) Therefore, it is every Christian’s moral responsibility to use the authority given to them only within the boundaries of righteousness and to act in accordance with God's will.

Critics argue that voting on principle is impractical, but Christians ought to act on the wisdom of God, even if it appears foolish from a human vantage point. Nevertheless, I believe that the wisdom of God offers the only path to real success even in human terms. Christ does say that if you faithfully seek God's kingdom, “all other things will be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33. NKJV.)

There are two benefits to voting based on principle rather than political expediency. The first and most obvious is that when a citizen votes for a Godly (though imperfect) candidate he honors God by voting morally. Second, every vote for such a candidate adds to the likelihood that he will win the election, reaping pragmatic benefits. The only reason Godly candidates lose is because too few voted for them. When we create imaginary requirements to vote for only one of the two main candidates, we submit ourselves to a system that advocates moral relativity and presses us into making excuses for unrepentantly wicked men like John McCain. (“Is it Immoral to Vote for McCain/Palin? Battle Royale XIII.” TheologyOnline. 08 Oct. 2008.)

It’s the devil’s game to give you two evil choices and act like he’s the good guy by letting you “choose” one. When given choices A and B by the devil, what would Jesus do? The answer is C. When Christ was asked by His disciples, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither…” (John 9:2-3. NIV.) Given two wrong choices, he refuses both.

We are to follow Christ’s example and choose the good that God has provided to us in every choice and circumstance. When we vote we must actively look for the candidate who most effectively stands for His will. When we find such a candidate we should vote for him or write in the name. We are never forced to choose between two evils and never have been. Jesus knew this and lived it. Christ came into this world to make sure we would always have a right choice. With Him, we can stand in faith, even in the face of seemingly impossible odds, and overcome evil with good, because all things are possible through Christ.

To read more, you can explore my previous notes The Lesser of Two Evils: The Devil With His Mask On & McCain: The Other Pro-Choice Candidate.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=337730757553 

Palin And the Democrates

News : Excerpts (my comments in brackets):

The former Republican vice-presidential nominee and heroine to much of the GOP's base said in an interview she views the electorate as embattled and fatigued by nonstop partisanship, and she is eager to campaign for Republicans, independents and even Democrats who share her values on limited government, strong defense and "energy independence."

[Does she not realize the electorate, and all politics are supposed to be partisan? Its a two-party system. ]

"I will go around the country on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation," she said over lunch in her downtown office, 40 miles from her now-famous hometown of Wasilla — population 7,000 — where she began her political career.

"People are so tired of the partisan stuff — even my own son is not a Republican," said Mrs. Palin, who stunned the political world earlier this month with her decision to step down as governor July 26 with 18 months left in her term.

Both her son, Track, 20, an enlisted soldier serving in Iraq, and her husband, Todd, are registered as "nonpartisan" in Alaska.

[Again, politics is supposed to be partisan. This is basic American political science 101. The problem is that there is not ENOUGH partisanship, and THAT is why more people are opting out of a party, particularly from the GOP. The GOP is no different than the DNC whether by principles or by tactics. Palin's clueless.]

The governor, 45, said she shared former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's view that Republicans, now trailing Democrats and independents in registration in many states, should back moderate-to-conservative Democrats in congressional districts and states where Republicans stand almost no chance of winning.

[This IS the problem. Moderates are liberals. What's the point in having a party platform if the leaders and people don't hold to them?? And what's with this notion of voting for a Democrate if a Republican has no chance of winning???? Pragmatism is winning the day over principles and THAT is what is killing our society. Talk about playing politics! Do whatever it takes to claim a win? ]

The object would be to build a majority coalition that reflects what polls suggest is the current center-right tilt of the U.S. electorate as a whole.

The barrage of ethics complaints hasn't been totally partisan. A Republican activist named Andree McLeod has filed many of the complaints against Mrs. Palin.

"She put personal and partisan political interests before the state of Alaska," Mrs. McLeod told The Washington Times.

Mrs. McLeod said she became friends with Mrs. Palin in 2002 and later grew disillusioned when, in Mrs. McLeod's view, Mrs. Palin didn't live up to her ethics-in-office promises.

Mrs. McLeod said Mrs. Palin, before and during her campaign for vice president, used her gubernatorial communications staff to promote herself at state government expense rather than to promote Alaska. Regardless of whether elected officials in both parties do it, she said, "A rule is a rule, and politicians and their staff who violate a rule get punished. Why should Sarah Palin be any different?"

Another friend turned critic, Alaska Republican Chairman Randy Ruedrich, said Mrs. Palin worked assiduously with Democrats in the state legislature.

"Her Alaskan Democrat allies stood for rapid government growth, increased government spending and taxing energy to the maximum and definitely did not stand for limited government, spending restraint, strong national defense and energy independence," said Mr. Ruedrich, who described himself as an early mentor to Mrs. Palin.

At the mention of Mr. Ruedrich's name during the interview with the governor, the temperature in the room seemed to drop 20 degrees.

End quote.

She hates the politics of politics; the division of two parties. Wait, division is ok IF its on HER issues. She's a double-minded, unstable person. That's not an insult, its an observation. Its the type of person the Pentecostal/Charismatic movement attracks.

This is the woman who said, “Get beyond the ideal of abstinence,” the 44 year old, new grandmother said. “Hey, life happens.” –Governor Sarah Palin to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel, 2-16-09 in reference to her teen daughter Bristol’s pregnancy."

I think that statement is clear enough: her principles are merely theories and she throws them out when its too hard to personally hold to them, which violates the whole notion of principles to begin with. Not only that, abstinence and women at home raising their children and running the home are not options according to Scripture: they are commands for ever Christian wife. So we see her unstability or double-mindedness on various isssues. The lastest is to suddenly quit in the middle of her term as governor of Alaska. So much for her work ethic and integrity. She's not fulfilling her term she promised to her voters.

Anyway, I say there isn't enough partisanship! But partisanship should be based on principles. I'd be for two parties: Liberals and Conservatives. Let the moderates figure out their home is with the Libs. =)

Sarah Palin: Parades Her Daughter, Now Is Upset With Media Treatment

Sarah Palin is up in arms about David Letterman making jokes about her and her daughter. Now she's got the support of a woman's advocacy group.

The problem is this: if Palin would stop parading her daughter around for political gain and compromise, she'd be far less of a target. Palin's feeling the affects of feminism and doesn't quite like it. She should get no more special treatment than any other politican. Perhaps she's not up to the task of being in the big leagues.

That said, David Letterman is a bumbling liberal. Why would anyone really expect him to be "nice" to Conservatives?

Hypocrisy Again: Sexually Immoral Bristol Palin Poster Child for Abstinence

Which one do YOU believe?

“Get beyond the ideal of abstinence,” the 44 year old, new grandmother said. “Hey, life happens.” –Governor Sarah Palin to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Channel, 2-16-09 in reference to her teen daughter Bristol’s pregnancy. Bristol told Fox that she has “no immediate plans to marry.” More on this issue at Slice of Laodicea.

Or:

Earlier this year, Palin had stirred a media storm over her comments to Fox News that abstinence "is not realistic at all."

Or:

Bristol Palin, 19, is back in the media spotlight as she helps promote the National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy on Wednesday....In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," Palin, who was appointed teen ambassador by Candie's Foundation for the awareness day, said she wants to send out the message that abstinence is the best and only way to prevent pregnancy.

Source here.

So Bristol had sexual intercourse outside of marriage and then got pregnant, and now is the spokesperson for an abstinence awareness? Can anyone say "Carrie Prejean"?? Hello????

What is wrong with these people who are used as poster children for moral causes yet they themselves are immoral and impure?