Saturday, May 12, 2007

In the World but not of the World: Politically Speaking

Most of the time it is easy for me to claim I have no interest in presidential races simply because no candidates in the past gave me any hope that any good could come politically--the power elites would do what they always do, that is, screw the rest of us! It's as if someone put a sign, the same sign, up and down out shores and border crossings: "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here." Abandon hope, because the power elites only took care of themselves.

But Presidential Campaign 2008 is WAY different! Not only do we have one candidate that really can make a difference, we actually have two! One in each of the two parties! One Republican, one Democrat! AMAZING! The Republican is, of course, Ron Paul; the Democrat is, of course, Mike Gravel. As far as I'm concerned, all the other candidates are either power elites or are shills of same, and a couple of them are "one trick ponies," so to speak. And one of them, Fred Thompson, who hasn't declared yet, is a red herring of sorts, a guy who will be wined and dined by the neocons who run the Republican party as a "safe" alternative for the masses they despise--anything to get the people to NOT look closely at Paul, who really, really is (more than Gravel, who hasn't given a position yet on key issues like abortion and gun control) the ONLY presidential candidate who will set America back on the right path (no pun intended!), while any other Republican will keep the US on the road to ruin (and, probably, totalitarian police state, or do I repeat myself?).

Here are the rest, first, according to a list of candidates at ABCNews.com:

Republican:

Rudy Giuliani: supports the Iraq war, abortion rights, and is generally regarded as a "law and order" candidate. Scandals, scandals, all around. Also claimed that is the Dems win the 2008 presidency, America will likely have another 9-11 attack, and that only Republicans could prevent that. As a NY prosecutor, was famous for sending so-called white collar criminals to jail. My take--if any Republican would be into instituting a police state, Giuliani is it.

John McCain: his name rhymes with "insane", and with his, "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" shtick, you don't need to be a licensed therapist to make this diagnosis. My take--Maniac McCainiac

Mitt Romney: This is the guy who is so teflon he makes Bill Clinton look like honest John. Now why did the power elites peg this guy who no one ever heard of 6 months ago? He is pro-abortion, which is why now he's "against" it. Supports Iraq war, but is trying hard to make himself out to be "reserved" on continued support...he's one of these "benchmarks" types. And, like Clinton, he's "good looking"! Finally, he's a Mormon. My take--the fact that he's another one of these guys who came outta no where to lick power elite ass makes him no leader in my eyes.

Tommy Thompson: Who? Well, for starters, he's pro-ethanol. Comes from Wisconsin. Too bad you can't make gasoline for cow's milk...on the other hand, one shouldn't be using our nations food corn supply to make it, either! My take--ABC refers to him as being supported by "conservative Democrats", which is code for "flip-flop at any speed!"

Sam Brownback: A one trick pony for sure, being the most liable to have Religious Right support. he's one of the folks who made sure Kansas taught creationism in schools. Now I am no evolutionist by any means, but I know enough about creationism to know it's faith, not science, by even the name "intelligent design." My take--the Religious Right will abandon him when they realize he really doesn't have a prayer (no pun intended).

Duncan Hunter: Who? According to ABCNews.com, this guy supports Bush lock, stock, and barrel. My take--who?

Jim Gilmore: This guy exemplifies "Who?" ABCNews.com considers him a flip-flopper of many proportions. Meanwhile Ron Paul is totally and unequivically consistent in his voting in the House: if it isn't in the Constitution, he votes against it...even if it helps his district! My take--Even if he was "Happy Gilmore" it wouldn't help him.

Newt Gingrich: According to ABCNews.com, the former Speaker of the House believes poor people ae responsible for global warming and is plagued with ethics violations. No wonder the Religious Right loves this guy! My take--actually, he is an undeclared candidate, so why is he up at this site, while Ron Paul IS NOT?

Mike Huckabee: Who? What? Where? He's a Bushian from a Clintonian state. My take--Ron Paul is missing from this list. Why is this joker on it?

Tom Tancredo: Another one trick pony. His big deal is immigration, a real hard-liner. My take: So is Ron Paul, so why is this fascist-lite guy on the list?

Democrats:

Hillary Clinton: ABCNews.com says it well: she's a polarizing candidate. Mention her name to all but the hard core and you can hear a million "I wouldn't vote for her if she was the last perosn on Earth"'s. My take--I wouldn't vote for her if she was the last person on Earth. In fact, I guarantee it if she becomes the President she will do what Bill couldn't do: take all of Bush's police state laws and run with them.

Barack Obama: In a party of Teflons, he's the leader. Totally untrustworthy. My take: Blacks will certainly vote for him.

John Edwards: Just a shade behind Obama in the Teflon department, even to his $400 haircut and hybrid SUV. My take--he was Al Gore's running mate. Enough said.

Joe Biden: According to ABCNews.com, he's "famous for enjoying the sound of his own voice." Mike Gravel called him our on his arrogance. My take--Mike Gravel knows what he's talking about.

Wesley Clark: The bomber of Serbia in 1999 is now against the Iraq War. Appeared on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" show on Link Channel, DirecTV 375 a while back to tell why he now opposes the war. My take--I don't particularly support him but if we had to have a high-up military person as President, he wouldn't be too horrible.

Chris Dodd: A "who?" among the Dems. Regrets his pro-Iraq war vote. Flip-flopper. My take--but a flip flopper no one cares about, so he might not be all that terrible.

Dennis Kucinich: Best known as the "true anti-war" candidate. But, on most domestic issues, he's hard core leftist. My take--ignore his antiwar stance and concentrate on the fact that he is pro-gun-control, pro-abortion, and pro-social spending on programs that don't work. He's the kind of guy I would vote for only if it kept up from having someone like Giuliani.

Al Gore: Not really a candidate, but what the hey? If he didn't have power elite support he just might be Mike Gravel, who scares the daylights out of the power elites as much as Ron Paul does (which is why Gravel is not on this list either). My take--"South Park" called him best: "'man-bear-pig, half-man, half-bear, and half-pig."

Bill Richardson: A nicer, more "tasteful" version of Mike Gravel, more power elite friendly. My take--if I had to choose someone the power elites favored on pain of death, it would have to be Bill Richardson, only because it seems he's done less damage to the American people than anyone else on this list.

Not mentioned:

Republican Ron Paul: A few call him "the savior of America." I wouldn't go that far, but as I said before, if it isn't authorized by the Constitution, Paul won't vote for it. This makes Paul the antithesis of the flip-flopper, a statesman in a world of politicians. In short, Paul favors abolition of the IRS and the Federal Reserve (privately-owned) Bank, serious reform of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Welfare programs (which is why he shouldn't expect much support from welfare recipients, and I'm not being racist making this claim because most people on welfare are white), getting out of Iraq yesterday and totally against war on Iran and Syria, is not beholden to Israel (the other reason he's not on the list!), is against illegal immigration (and, unlike the neo-fascist Tancredo, is not opposed to legal immigration) and is against the "NAFTA Superhighway" and (unlike most of the candidates in both parties) is actually willing to defend US sovereignty. He's anti-UN, anti-Kyoto, and anti- most every program coming out of the UN and NGOs these days. And he doesn't have the endorsement of the Religious Right. In other words... My take--Ron Paul represents, completely and unabashedly, the American people, and I will be honored to vote for him in the primaries! No problem...we both live in Texas. Plus, he's my son's Congressman!

Democrat Mike Gravel: This "cantankerous old man" can be said to have singlehandedly gotten us out of Vietnam, filibustering the Senate against re-authorizing the draft for five months. I do not know his position on some key issues such as abortion and gun control, but, speculating, him being a Unitarian Universalist, he's a liberal, and thus, probably pro-abortion; yet, being from Alaska, probably anti-gun control. If he is pro-abortion I cannot vote for him, but honestly, he's the best Democrat to run for President since Eugene McCarthy. This man (as with Ron Paul) actually has a plan to save the United States from utter ruination--direct Democracy, where citizens help in making laws. My take--Gravel, in his statement during the debate that "I will be the next President," is already the underground favorite (as Paul is the also the underground favorite of the Reps.). As with Paul, if millions of Americans who are fed up with "politics as usual" seek out who really stands for our interests and not the power elites, millions of American will find Gravel (and Paul).

Now, to my point of writing this...

The Bible says that the Kingdom of God is not of this earth, that we must subsume our fleshly desires in the Spirit (and, of course, the Kingdom of God is spirit). Yet, because of the command in Romans 13 that we must obey those in authority, it means that we, who are able to elect our leaders, must choose the best we can. In fact Romans 13 makes it imperative that we do so. Those, as on a forum (http://forums.bible-truths.com) that I have visited in the past, who believe we must as followers of Christ have nothing to do with politics and must not even vote, let alone campaign for a politician, are only seeing the prize without understanding the road to achieving it as a transformation at the end of the road. It is amazing that so many (and by that I mean a few can be "many") believe that they can achieve spiritual rebirth while still in the flesh simply by not having anything to do with anything fleshly or carnal! Amazing! So these people, some of whom are married, have no sex? So these people, all who have taste buds, have no favorite foods? So these people have no favorite TV show or web site or book or artwork or song? So these people, so convinced they can join "the elect" now just be subsuming all desires, really think all they have to do is sleepwalk through life letting anything and all things happen to them, to just be so passive, and this will "force" God to make them part of His elect? While it is true that we have no free will apart from God's Will we do have choices, we do have will (but not free will). Further, we do have to obey our leaders, right? So, who would you, follower of Christ, rather obey? A leader who follows the rule of law and the Constitution, or a leader who does what he damned well pleases and to heck with the law? Would you rather be lead by someone who honors Romans 13 or by someone who dishonors it?

Would you rather be ruled by a group of people headed by Ron Paul, who has consistently followed what is in the Constitution, or by someone like Hillary Clinton, who has a history of flip-flopping on the law, a history of seeking power for its own sake, and a history of being beholden to money, and to heck with the people? Or by someone like Rudy Giuliani, who refused to step down as Mayor of New York City when his term was up, all under the pretext of 9-11, suggesting that he could outdo Bush in the "dictator" department and consider himself "President for life" while instituting martial law?

That is why, even though Christ commands us to live in the Spirit, we must also make sure we are able to put leaders in office who will honor their duty to rule so that we can pursue our living in the Spirit, instead of having to become paranoid that we won't be able to in a constant state of fear.

Deborah Lagarde

No comments: