October 27, 2004

Kerry's vs. Bush's World View

Christians who read their Bibles know that a day is coming when the world will come under the rule of a One World dictator. While many books have been written, some good and some not so good, they always exude much speculation.

While I am critical of such a quasi-biblical sensationalism, the Bible is clear that the world will indeed one day be under the control of one man who heads up a global society.

With this next presidential election, we will be looking at a United States under one of two men with two vastly different ideas about the nature and shape of the world.

The first believes in the true sovereignty of the U.S. and has continuously demonstrated--to the chagrin of liberals—that he will do what is in the best interests of the country whether the rest of the world likes it or not.

The other man, trying to sound like a patriot and All-American, believes that the key to world peace is for all countries to come together in a one big happy community where all just picnic together eating Oreos and drinking cold milk.

This election; please remember both John Kerry’s actions and his words in the first debate. I cite them for your recall.

''No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.”

So far, so good! Then Kerry continues…

“But if and when you do it, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.''

Maybe you don’t get it but he just reversed his tough sounding, all-American start to his statement. It’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth and John Kerry is so masterful at it he can do it while eating a peanut butter sandwich.

The fact is no leader of any stripe would ever be able to “prove” to the citizens of Kerry’s world any case for our national interests. By definition, our “national” interests are wrong precisely because they are national. A one-world order must despise and reject every sense of nationalism. Maybe now you better understand the John Kerry of 1970 and the John Kerry of this campaign.
This election is huge! May God have mercy on us all

October 20, 2004

Why Honor Reeves?

I heard Margot Kidder on the news talking about the passing of Christopher Reeves; Kidder starred with Reeves in the superman movies and made a statement that the best way to honor Reeves was to support stem cell research.

Call me picky but why should we “honor” Reeves? Please don’t misunderstand me, I sympathize with his plight. But don’t we “honor” someone who has made a unique and lasting contribution for the betterment of society or for some heroic action or measure taken over the course of their life. Reeves was just a Hollywood actor who made millions portraying a comic book superhero. Nothing worth honoring in that. Then he had the misfortune of falling off a horse and wound up a quadriplegic. It was then that he became very interested in any research that might help him to regain his abilities. Who wouldn’t? Nothing worth “honoring” there. I sympathize but if there is any talk of honoring someone, it would be his wife who stuck by his side and loved him til death do they part. That doesn’t happen very much these days especially in Hollywood.

And I suspect Kidder’s comment about supporting stem cell research was meant as a jab at the President whose policies re: stem cell research are intentionally misstated. President Bush has always supported stem cell research, he just does not want to use your and my taxes to pay for embryonic stem cell research with which, by the way, there has not been found a single cure for anything…

On this same day I heard John Edwards state that if John Kerry is elected, people like Reeves will be jumping out of their wheel chairs and walking—I kid you not—because, even though stem cells are available through several other legitimate sources, Kerry intends to throw millions at the research that kills human to harvest these special cells. Sounds more like Dr. Mengele than a candidate for the president of the United States.

Solomon wrote,
Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

The choice is ours come Nov. 2nd. Sin or righteousness; now that’s a tough choice.

October 14, 2004

Is John Kerry a Pharisee?

Well, the last of three debates is over. John Kerry had some interesting things to say—if you’re a casual listener. If you’re a careful listener, you have to put his words against the backdrop of his track record; if you do that, what you have is just noise.

As a Christian, I am particularly interested in the faith of the candidates. Now I don’t demand that a candidate be a Christian per se; we’ve had several of those in office in the past and I have to say, I was not impressed. But what I do demand is that a candidate be a person of integrity, so if they say they are a Christian, I expect there to be evidence of that.
What constitutes evidence? Among other things, I expect the values of the person to reflect the values of God. When you look at them in brief, I see that one candidate is pro-abortion; pro-homosexuality; pro-killing babies for research; pro-stealing from the rich and hard working to give to the poor and unwilling to work; and whose “yes” often means “no” and whose “no” often means “yes.”

When I try to square Senator Kerry’s values with those of the heart and mind of God, there’s only words that pay lip service to some religious forms.

As the leader of a 501-C3 organization, I am not allowed to officially endorse a candidate; as an American citizen, I am. But there’s no need. If my Christian faith is supposed to impact my entire life, then the teachings of Scripture must carry through to the way I vote. If they do not, I am a hypocrite, just like the Pharisees of old. And of all the people Jesus came in contact with, it was the Pharisees that Jesus had the least patience with, the least time for, the least in the way of anything good to say.

So it is sufficient to say that I will be voting for the man who best reflects—by lifestyle and choices--the character and attributes of Christ—not perfectly to be sure, but definitely. Anyone can say what they want, but like John Kerry said himself, last Wednesday; “Faith without works is dead.” and from what I can tell, the senator’s faith is on life support and the prognosis is not good.

October 13, 2004

Typical Liberal Open-mindeness...

Why is it that when any kind of controversy arises in the realm of free speech it seems to be invariably a liberal excoriating the ideas or values of a conservative?

Two examples in brief: When Ohio Police officer Rob Breyley parked his privately owned vehicle at the police station he was ordered by his Chief to remove his anti-Kerry sign on his privately owned vehicle. The Chief muttered some drivel about signs on city property. Maybe not a colossal controversy except for the fact that in the same parking lot, in clear view of the Chief and everyone else were other vehicles, with pro-Kerry signs on them and of course you might guess that none of them were ordered to remove theirs. Sigh!

And when schoolteacher Shiba Pillai-Diaz was approached by her assistant principal to remove her picture of the President and his wife from her classroom bulletin board she refused. The board was an American history display, which contained numerous artifacts like the Declaration of independence, and other documents by the founding fathers.

The teacher says she has never mentioned her political affiliation in school although further research into this story casts some doubt on her innocence. But what is disturbing-- though predictable-- is one of the statements made by the superintendent of schools where Ms. Pillai-Diaz served.
He said, “Ms. Pillai-Diaz was directed to remove bulletin board materials because they were being viewed as contributing to an ongoing disruption of the teaching-learning environment.”

Note he did not say they were disruptive; merely that they were being viewed as disruptive. It’s the game of the thought police that if we think something is so; it is! Objective reality is irrelevant.

Still it is beyond cavil that these sorts of disputes are almost always waged by the self-proclaimed, most open-minded and tolerant of our culture whereas we are always lead to believe it is the confounding conservatives who want to censor everyone who doesn’t believe what they believe.

“Loyalty and truth preserve the king, and he upholds his throne by righteousness.” wrote Solomon.” Proverbs 20:28 On Nov. 2nd we shall see!

I think America is starting to get it!

October 06, 2004

What Difference Does it Make if Bush Lied?

Copyright William E. Cripe Sr. Aug. 2004

How far have we retreated from a common decency and good sense? I think Michael Moore answers my question as well as anyone. Seated before Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly on the night of the convention of democrats, Moore belligerently repeated an incessant refrain of “Bush lied; Bush lied!” When pressed by O’Reilly to explain how Bush lied, Moore could only offer that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Moore’s post-modern deconstruction of language determines a lie to be saying something that is not true, regardless of intent or mitigating circumstances. Let me explain how ridiculous this is.

Let’s say that on the way to answer your telephone in the kitchen you pass through the living room where “Bob” is sitting watching television. You pick up the phone and the person on the other end asks to speak with Bob to which you reply, “Hold on, he’s in the other room.” But as soon as you had passed through the living room, Bob walked out into the garage. You call his name careening your head around the corner but Bob’s not there. You tell the person on the phone, “I’m sorry, he must have stepped out.” In Michael Moore’s world, since Bob wasn’t there and you said he was, you are a liar!

So even though the intelligence communities of five different nations, and former President Clinton, along with the Democrat’s nominee for president and senators too numerous to count, all said Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, in Moore’s world of don’t confuse me with the facts, the president lied.

In a special briefing with President Bush this past April, I was impressed by the apparent honesty which exuded from this man. Still, I was skeptical—after all, we were in Washington… So I set out from that day until now, keeping my ear to the ground for any inconsistency in the president’s words to us that day at the Whitehouse with other statements and actions that would follow.

In my search for truth, I critically read Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack,” finding him to be a reliable reporter also searching for truth rather than an axe to grind. After exercising extreme discipline listening to some of Bush’s most irrational critics to the point of nausea, this is my conclusion.

There has not been a single statement, decision, or action taken by this president where upon examination, interrogation and investigation he was found to knowingly mislead or deceive. For me, it is a huge deal whether the president lied or not for as the wise Solomon wrote in the book of Proverbs, “He who walks in integrity walks securely, but he who perverts his ways will be found out.” Again, Solomon writes, “The integrity of the upright will guide them, but the falseness of the treacherous will destroy them.” We are seeing this played out almost daily as election year politicking intensifies.

At the end of the day, all we have to rely on are a person’s words until there are actions to confirm or deny those words. With three and a half years of hyper-critical, under-the-microscope examination, President Bush continues to emerge scrupulously trustworthy. You may not like everything this president says and does, but you can go to the bank knowing that what is spoken is as it is and you haven’t been sold a bill of goods. In my book, that’s a priceless commodity.

October 03, 2004

Bush out debated but...

Well the first debate is over—thank goodness. That George Bush is not the most articulate person in the world is obvious. By any objective standard of evaluation, an honest person—regardless of political affections—must admit Bush did not present well; Kerry did.

But for all the so-called advantage of being the incumbent, there is also one huge advantage of not being the incumbent. John Kerry has NO history, no track record as president, as statesman, as negotiator, as leader; as diplomat; as motivator- in-chief. Which means in a debate format, the incumbent is at a huge disadvantage being open to all manner of criticism of every jot and tittle that has not worked in the president’s previous four years.

What this means is—and we saw it in all it’s glory Thursday night, that the challenger—John Kerry can say absolutely anything and make the most outlandish pie in the sky promises and claims for success with impunity. Talk is CHEAP; and with this particular candidate, talk is not merely cheap it’s worthless; on that score Kerry has a long-standing record.

What I fear is that the President’s handlers will try to make him a better debater and frankly if the raw material isn’t there, and it isn’t, that will be a mistake. Instead, Bush needs to come right out and acknowledge that Kerry out-talked him; that he WON the contest of clear, articulate speech. And if the country wants a man whose single talent is the gift of saying whatever anyone wants to hear when the want to hear it, then Kerry IS the man. But if they want a leader with a proven history of making the tough calls in the face of heavy criticism; and if they want a leader with a track record of unwavering stability and impeccable integrity, then he is their man.

Solomon wrote, “A lying tongue hates those it crushes, And a flattering mouth works ruin.” Proverbs 26:28

Hopefully the voters of this great nation will see it all for what it is.

October 02, 2004

John Kerry unpatriotic?

Ya know, throughout this wonderful election year we have heard the incessant charge that one party--usually the Republicans, have challenged the other party’s, usually the Democrats, patriotism. I have found it intriguing that everyone, including Rush Limbaugh, go out of their way to assure their listeners that they are not questioning John Kerry’s, or whoever the person happens to be, patriotism. Well I want to go on record to say categorically, I DO question Kerry’s, as well as many other’s patriotism.

Why do I make a point of it? The dictionary says patriotism is “Love of country; and devotion to the welfare of one's country…”

Someone explain to me how Senator Kerry meeting with the declared enemy of the US while our troops are in their prisoner of war camps being tortured for information, contributes to the welfare of our country? And how does Senator Kerry’s declaring that we cannot win this war the way it is being fought and that the commander in chief is incompetent, contribute to the welfare of this country? And how have Senator Kerry’s votes against the military’s strength and equipping contribute to the welfare of the country? And, we could truly go on and on. So as I see it, Kerry’s patriotism needs to be questioned swift boat or not. Service in the military alone does not a patriot make.
Was the soldier from the 101st who tossed the grenade into the tent of his own buddies in the early days of the war a patriot just because he served with the elite 101st? Obviously not. So while no one else wants to say it, I will. I’ve known patriots Mr. Kerry and you’re no patriot-plain and simple. That’s my opinion…