Category Archives: conservative

Leadership Material: Sarah Palin

An animated conversation ensued around the lunch table, as Sarah Palin, her leadership and potential as a Presidential candidate was heatedly discussed.  The women, all home schooling moms and conservative Christians from various backgrounds, passionately voiced opinions that ranged from a high level of respect for Governor Palin, to a concern for her family, if she runs for President.

One mom held the conviction that women should not be in positions of leadership over men.  I respect her opinions, though I do not agree with them.  I decided to do some Biblical digging to see what women in the Bible were leaders and what qualities they possessed.  The woman that immediately came to mind was Deborah, the Judge of Israel around 1200 B.C. found in the book of Judges chapters 4 and 5.  One commentary stated the following:

Deborah was unique among the women and men of  Bible history in that she was a prophetess, a judge and a military leader all in one – a powerful triple combination of authority and responsibility held by only two other Israelites, Moses and Samuel.
She was referred to as the “mother of Israel” because of her leadership in the battle against Canaanite oppression.

Biblically, women have been raised up “for such a time as these“, and have been mighty leaders, used to serve God in various capacities. Deborah is an inspirational woman who not only led in a judicial and legislative role, but also led in a victorious military role as well.  The Bible says that under her leadership Israel enjoyed peace for forty years.

Many women throughout history have demonstrated an exceptional ability to lead.  Sarah Palin is such a woman, and perhaps this is what has caused intense fear in those who oppose her point of view.  She is, in fact, a threat, because she stands against everything women on the left have put forward as leaders.  Her point of view reflects that of millions of American women; where as the feminist voice that has had the bully pulpit for so long, has finally been muffled by one that rings truer to most.

Is Sarah Palin the next President?  Maybe.  Is Sarah Palin a leader that speaks of a reality that millions of Americans live and adhere to everyday?  Absolutely!  Perhaps she has also been raised up for such a time as these.

Should Boehner be Under Fire for his First Cuts?

Responding to the question of whether John Boehner will keep a tight leash on the troops, Patrick O’Connor responded to The News Hub by saying,  “Actually no, he’s not….. (they will be) Doing more symbolic legislating than real legislating. They are going to pass a package of cuts, I believe on Thursday or Friday, that would trim operating budgets for member offices, committees and leadership staffs; $25-$35 million, a pittance when you are looking at a budget of $3 1/2 trillion.”

A scoffing tone can be heard in the term pittance, in light of the first cuts that Boehner desires to make. And it may be a mere molecule in the cosmos of Congressional spending, but it is in fact, a movement toward decreasing the budget. If a message is to be sent to those who hired this new Congress, a message of personal belt tightening is a good way to begin. The newly elected, who elect to cut their own pay, may well then be trusted to cut those things not quite as near and dear to them.

“There has to be a visible gesture that people can immediately relate to,” said Pete Sepp, the executive vice president of the conservative National Taxpayers Union.

“And cutting pay would be one of the best symbols, because unlike virtually anything else the federal government does, when Congress spends money on its own salaries and benefits, people can make a direct comparison to their own situation,” Sepp said.

Pittance or not, cutting one’s own pay to demonstrate the new direction of this Congress is a smashing way to start their new inning.

Conservative for California Governor

Cutting through the political jargon has been my mission. Phone calls, reading websites, and sending emails to gubernatorial candidates has been my task; all with the goal of uncovering who the real conservative is in the race for California Governor. The conversations have been fascinating and the answers diverse, but only one candidate can officially have title of “True Conservative”, and it is not, as Tom McClintock endorsed, Steve Poizner.

One such endorsement comes from Conservative stalwart Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA). During a conference call McClintock pointed to a few reasons why he will support Poizner for California’s governor. “We simply cannot afford anymore Republicans in name only in California. Meg is nothing more than a Schwarzenegger third term.”

I began this journey asking the question on Facebook, “What questions would you like to have asked and answered by those running in the name of the Conservative for California Governor? I’ll be calling their offices on Friday, so shoot me your thoughts and questions.” Responses were posted and from these I created my questions for the various candidates. My hope was not to just read the talking points of each candidate, but to speak with the candidate or campaign staffer to hear the heart of the individual. Written words on a candidate’s website may state one’s position, but the passion and conviction of the heart is heard in the voice. Campaign advertisements and mailings are nothing but a polished sales pitch, a way to woo the heart and mind of the potential voter, many times by smearing the other suitors in the race.

Budget, business and immigration were the key concerns of my questioners, but for me, a fiscal conservative is not enough, and I was on a quest to find which candidate was a social conservative as well. I do not want to have to settle for the better of two evils, when there is a real candidate who stands for what I believe. I gave into the argument that I would be throwing my vote away if I didn’t vote for Schwarzenegger and indeed I did throw it away by voting for the Terminator. So this time around, I did my due diligence and talked with each of the candidates so as to find the individual who most closely represents what I as a conservative Christian believe.

The questions that were asked are as follows:

  1. What measures will you take to make California a business friendly state? California tax revenue is down30% since taxes have been raised. What are your thoughts and what do you intend to do?
  2. The policy of the decade has resulted in a loss in businesses and business in California. Our state is one of, if not the most unfriendly to business. How are you going to stand against the vocal minorities who are not pro-business and begin enticing business to come, stay and grow in California?
  3. What will you do to support Arizona’s new immigrations law? Will you choose to uphold existing Federal immigration laws, including follow through on criminal charges brought against illegal immigration?
  4. What are your views on healthcare, welfare, drivers licenses and school for illegals?
  5. What ten programs will you cut?
  6. Do you support the idea of a part time legislature to help balance the budget?
  7. Will you cut taxes and limit spending to bring things under control without cutting essential services?
  8. What are your views on abortion?
  9. What are your views on education?
  10. Define “Limited Government”.  How will you implement this idea, if you support it?
  11. Define “Conservative”.  Do you feel that you fit into that description and why?

Steve Poizner

1.Tax Reform

  • 10% Cut on State sales tax
  • 10% Cut on Corporate tax
  • 10% Rainy day fund
  • 50% Reduction in the capital gains tax rate
  • 2. Streamline Government : Create jobs and promote innovation.
  • Labor Reform to empower employees and make California competitive again.
  • Tort Reform for an economy focused on growth and expansion

3 & 4. Immigration: Supports Arizona’s Immigration Law.

  • Securing our borders utilizing the National Guard.
  • Create a multi-state National Guard Partnership between these border states.
  • Cut taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal immigrants.
  • Hold employers responsible for following the law.
  • End sanctuary city practices.

5. Hiring Freeze a prohibition on the replacement of retiring or quitting workers.

  • Debt Freeze prohibits treasurer from issuing new General Fund-backed debt
  • State Spending Freeze holds spending to 2009-2010 levels

6. Supports a part-time legislature
7. 18-month hiring freeze in non-public safety state personnel
8. Abortion pro-choice

  • Outlaw all government funding of abortions.
  • Endorsed the 2010 Parental Notification Initiative.
  • Opposes late-term abortions.
  • Streamline adoptions and ensure that widespread educational programs.
  • (These positions are found on his website and where also discussed with me by his staffer, however he has made earlier contradictory statements.  When I asked the staffer about Poizner’s 100% approval rating from Planned Parenthood, she stated it was just a rumor, however many news sources demonstrate otherwise. Here is a copy of the form that he filled out according to an LA Times article.)

9. Education : Transfer power and responsibility to the district level.

  • Hold districts accountable for performance.
  • Eliminate barriers to success in the state’s five worst-performing districts.

10. “Limited Government” : Part time legislature.
11.“Define Conservative” : Second Amendment, no legalized marijuana, traditional marriage, no federal health care, no foreign oil.

Meg Whitman

1. Less Regulation on business and businesses.                                                                        

  • Cut tax for starting a small businesses.
  • Eliminate the 10% factory tax.

2. Increase research and development tax credit.

  • Promote tax credit to encourage investment in water conservation technology.
  • Eliminate capital gains tax.

3 & 4. “Does not support the Arizona Immigration Law.”

  • No amnesty or path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
  • Secure the border utilizing the National Guard.
  • Economic fence: employers can check immigration status.
  • Work place inspection for illegals, holding employers responsible for hiring.
  • No drivers licenses, benefits, school, admission to California colleges for illegals.
  • English immersion in the classrooms.
  • Eliminate sanctuary cities.

5. Cut 40,000 government jobs.

  • Cut healthcare spending in prison.
  • Cut $15 billion of spending.

6. Supports part-time legislature
7. See number 5
8. Abortion Pro-choice

  • Choice is for women, spouses and  their doctor.
  • Only in the case of the harm of the mother.
  • Parental notification and no late-term abortion.
  • No federal funding.  (The above statements are from the phone interview with a staffer in Meg Whitman’s office, however, it contradicts earlier interviews.)

According to the Examiner: On abortion, she declared herself pro-choice but said she does not support late-term abortions, favors parental notification if an abortion is recommended for minors and supports adoption reform to encourage both mothers and prospective adoptive parents to participate in the adoption process.

9. Education : Reward outstanding teachers.

  • Eliminate cap on charter schools.
  • College- $1 billion to the U.C. Schools.

10. “Limited Government” : Less regulation on business.  Government should not be burden on people. Charter schools.

11. “Define Conservative” : “Meg stands on her ideals and it fits well with
Republican ideals. Second Amendment, limited government, serve the people.”

Robert Newman

1. & 2. Government must not be an obstacle to establishing a business.

  • Permit process must be made clear and easy to complete.
  • Regulation must be eased.
  • Energy-saving and renewable products produced in California.

3. & 4. Endorses a thrust toward citizenship for those who have been living, working,
and law-abiding for many, documented years.

  • A guest-worker program for areas of labor where needs are eminent.
  • Federal government must absorb cost of border issue.
  • Mexico needs to monitor her boarders.
  • Supports Arizona’s sovereign right to protect her border.

5. Departments and programs must be gone through and wasteful spending eliminated; all department will see cut backs.
6. Supports part time legislature.
7. Essential services such as education, some aspects of welfare, safety and
mandatory spending will remain in place while the spending is cut.
8. Abortion Prolife

  • Life begins at conception.
  • No funding in the U.S. or abroad.
  • No stem cell research.

9. Education needs sufficient funding so teachers can be secure in their jobs
and students will have the best learning environment.

  • Teacher and pupil benefit greatly from increased contact, thus less paperwork.
  • Parents are in charge of their child’s education. Supports charter schools, private schools, home schools and vouchers.

10. “Limited Government” : “Less government to interfere with the private
lives of people. All government has a tendency to encroach on personal
rights. Privatize as much as possible.”
11. “Define Conservative”: “Relying on principles presented in God’s
Word to conduct one’s behavior in life.”
“Fiscally conservative means living within one’s means, paying bills and debt
debt on time and creating reserve fund.”

Larry Naritelli

1. Lower tax rates

  • 50%  for Corporations.
  • Lower 30%-50% income tax.
  • Eliminate capitol gains tax.

2. Free market solutions to rebuild business in California.

  • Develop domestic oil.
  • Restore certainty to agriculture for water.
  • Opposes Cap and Trade and AB 32.

3. & 4. Supports Arizona’s Immigration Law as an effort to enforce Federal law.

  • Enforce the laws in place, strengthen the fence. Support law enforcement and Border Patrol.
  • Cut off financial incentives for illegals.
  • Charge back the country of origin for the cost of their citizens in the U.S.
  • Enforce, verify and document workers and hold employers accountable.
  • Sanctuary cities will be held accountable.

5. Any program that is related to “climate change”.

6. Supports a part time legislature.

7. Programs like welfare and unemployment must be monitored and spending
cut. Subsidies for “green jobs and technology” should be cut, allowing the free
market to grow these markets.
8. Abortion Prolife

  • Supports the sanctity of human life as a gift from our Creator.
  • This is not an issue of choice, it is a matter of personal responsibility.
  • The choice is always made up front before any conception.

9. Education : Put the power back in the hands of local school districts.

  • Encourage competition through homeschooling, charter and private schools, and school vouchers.
  • Private sector funding and loans for higher education.
  • Curriculum must be based in truth, not false science nor revised history.
  • Trade and vocational schools are important to our future.  Schools should be judged on the output of it’s student/citizen, not test scores alone.

10. “Limited Government” : “Trust the people. Government is responsible to
provide for the safety and common good of it’s citizens. Government is not in
the business to be in business. Free market defines what success it.
Less government will have fewer commissions and bureaucratic offices
and will be held accountable by the people.”
11. “Define Conservative” : “One who is fiscally responsible, believes in limited
government. Examples are Ronald Reagan and Eisenhower. One who care-
fully evaluates before making a decision. Prolife, traditional marriage, Second
Amendment. Let’s allow the free market work. Let’s stay true to our values,
principles and true to the Constitution. I have held these values all my life.”

Two other candidates that I did not reach are Ken Miller and Bill Chambers.

Ken believes we must spur economic growth and investments, create jobs, educate our children, reduce the size of government, stop illegal immigration, protect our citizens, and engage in our democracy.

Bill Chambers states on his website:

Californians needs a leader who is in touch with the majority of its people, a leader who is a peer on both a social and economic level, and a leader who can explain the reasons for making the decisions they do.  All of our elected politicians should be held accountable and responsible for their actions.  Politics is a field that with every decision you make, someone will disagree with your decision. You have to have thick skin and choose the decision that’s best for the people, even if it goes against your own personal opinion.

What, as a follow of Christ, should be my standard for voting?  It becomes difficult, when there is no choice that honors God’s standard found in the Bible, so one must pick the better of the evils.  However, I was convicted by an 18 year old girl who stated, “Shouldn’t we always vote for the candidate that is the moral choice?”  I haven’t always voted my conscience, because I bought the lie, that I was throwing my vote away, but as I contemplate the front runners and see that they do not hold to the standards of God’s Word, I as a believer, need to stand on the convictions of my faith,  and not be tolerant of their position and water down my vote.  We have been much too silent in our convictions I am afraid at the voting booth, and because of this, we have reaped a government that does not reflect what a Christian nation should look like and our culture is in moral decay.  Our hope is in God alone, but we are responsible for throwing our vote away when we vote for those who don’t stand for what God stands for.  In the eternal scheme of things, God will honor those of us who stand on the Word of God and represent Him, even in the voting booth.

Look at each candidate carefully and decide for yourself who is the “True Conservative”.

To Be A Politically Active Christian, Or Not To Be

Recently I responded to a Facebook status that said,


“I am really getting tired of people who believe our salvation is somehow tied to our government.”

On the surface it could have been a fairly benign comment based on the reality that government should not be seen as the great savior of all Americans, and to put one’s hope in a government or man is foolish. The following is the conversation that ensued and I would like to invite you to join the conversation. What are your thoughts on the the above statement?

I responded to the above mentioned status, “I agree….if my people, who are called by my name shall humble themselves…..It starts on our knees in humility….”

She responded, “We aren’t going to get saved through politics. Jesus didn’t come to save us politically.”

Again, I responded, “No, you are right, if politics is seen as salvation, it is our damnation. But I do think we must, as Christians make noise that will affect change in the powers that be, whether that is politically, pop culture, or the kid next door. I think that we have to go into all our world and preach the Gospel, which means telling those in office and all we come in contact with, that they are sinners, going to hell, in need of a Savior (who loves them and desires to offer them forgiveness and eternal life). It won’t change the direction of the country politically, but perhaps it will change the hearts of the direction makers in the country.”

Another gal popped into the thread stating, “Are you saying that telling people in public office that they are sinners and are going to hell will change their hearts? I do think we should vote our morals, but all Jesus said about government is to respect it and pay our taxes, and during His time they had one of the most ungodly and blasphemous leaders possible. Their mission was not to Christianize the government. Jesus’ strategy was never to condemn, it was to love, and to shine a light that draws people toward you instead of wanting to get away from you. I agree with (the original author’s name), as Christians our focus should be showing God’s love and light to people we meet.”

My friend responded, “If it means sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with elected officials, yes, just as we would with anyone else. And if they accept the grace of Christ, that is great. But we have to realize that this kingdom really doesn’t matter in the long run. I realize that this world is temporal. We are strangers and aliens on this earth. So yes, I vote my conscience, but political change is not our job, spiritual change is. Actually spiritual change isn’t even our job, it’s God’s work. We are to go to the ends of the earth and share the Gospel; but it is God who reaches down into the market place of sin and pulls us out of the mire. We cannot even lift our finger out of it. God has to come and find us. (Romans 9:16). It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire but on God’s mercy. When we receive that mercy that He gives to us, then our lives are changed. We have confidence in the finished work of Christ that our salvation is a sure thing. We do not need to keep striving to earn that salvation. This leads to us wanting to Please God and, hence, obeying His commands. I John 3:23 says, “And this is His command; to believe in the name of His son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us” and that love requires us to tell others the Gospel. Why would we want to keep this Good News to ourselves. So yes, we should tell anyone, even an individual elected official. But government as a concept is not redeemable. It is a worldly institution and will perish.

At this point, my mind was wrestling with all these truths that I too agreed with, yet I couldn’t agree completely with the final conclusion. I responded, “I was thinking very much about this conversation. If we are to be salt and light in every area that God leads us; work, mothering, shopping, etc., then by virtue of the fact that He in His Providence has placed us in a nation that is run by “We the People”, we should in fact, as Christians, be salt and light in the democratic system in which we have been blessed to live. I know that we are to be living in the Kingdom of God, but I think that we as a church have been apathetic to our responsibility to keep the stewardship of this great Nation in line with Biblical Principles. I agree that God is the Lord of the Harvest. The Holy Spirit is the power of ultimate salvation, redemption, and eternal change in the hearts of man, to believe otherwise puts one on the level of Savior, and that is insanity; however, going into all the world means taking the Light that indwells us and going into the circumstances in which God has placed us to share this light. To ignore the God given government He has blessed us to live under and not be a “light sharer” within, would be missing part of the world He has sent us into. Salt hurts those who are wounded by sin and death and light blinds, so I submit that our government and the people who are currently running it are in dire need of these two elements.”

My reason for chronicling this dialogue is for the purpose of brain picking and hearing from you the reader. I am curious to see if we should be dis-engaged because government is not redeemable and therefore our focus is misplaced. Is voting one’s conscience all that we as believers should be doing? What do you believe the role of the Christian is in regard to government and politics.

Would there be any reason to think that America would exist as a Nation if the Founders felt that the institution of government was not redeemable and that their struggle for independence from Britain was not a Biblical perspective and therefore the job for a Christian?

Please feel free to speak your mind. Iron sharpens iron and I believe we all need to be sharp in every area of our lives.

Obama Says that He is not Losing Sleep

Art and media are the means and bridge over which the current philosophy of the philosophers reaches the general culture.” “Whoever controls the media controls the culture.Francis Schaeffer – How Should We Then Live?

first amendment

When the powers that be no longer control the monopoly of ideas and philosophy being fed to the public, then that power must reinstate itself, many times through tyrannical means, to regain control of all avenues of thought and communication.  This is what we are seeing take place in the White House.  The lack of control over the communication that is coming from Fox News, talk radio and the blogosphere has the Administration scrambling to out maneuver the news coming from these avenues.  Obviously, the First Amendment is under attack. Fear has shut down free speech all over the world and throughout history yet because engaged Americans know this, they are wide awake and ready to stand on the “Free Speech Amendment” of the Bill of Rights.

Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen from Politico are running a two part series to look into this attack on Conservative conversation.  They quote Dana Perino, the former White House press secretary to Bush who said, “They won — why don’t they act like it?  The more they fight, the more defensive they look. It’s only been 10 months, and they’re burning bridges in a lot of different places.”  (Vandehei and Allen: Obama Strategy: Marginalize Most Powerful Critics

Savannah Guthrie, NBC News White House correspondent interviewed President Obama on Wednesday, October 21,2009,  and this same evening on Fox,  Hannity aired part of the exclusive interview in which Ms. Gutherie questioned Obama saying, “This stir over Fox News….is this working, is it appropriate for the White House to say what is and what is not a news organization?”

Obama responded, “Our advisers simply said that we are going to take media as it comes, and if media is operating basically as a talk radio format that is one thing, and if it is operating as a news outlet, that is another.  It’s not something I am losing alot of sleep over.”

According to Hannity, this part of the broadcast was omitted from the actual broadcast. Sleep has been lost in the White House.

Mark Davis, columnist and talk show host wrote in his column for Dallas, “So as the current administration dithers over how hard to fight in Afghanistan, the decision has already been made to launch a surge of rhetoric against the sole network that does not dance to the Obama piper.”

One would agree that there are much bigger fires to fight for the Obama Administration, but their focus on the area  of  Free Speech has put a fire in most American hearts. The attack on the First Amendment Rights of Fox News and other organizations, who raise a voice against the policies of this White House, is something that all citizens should have concern over.

Obama and company can’t seem to handle the truth and so they attempt to marginalize by name calling and scare tactics.  These are not exactly strong leadership skills, but more like street bully skills.  If there is no credibility in the news that comes out of Fox News, then the statement “Be sure, the truth will find you out” should be a relief to the White House.  It is a two way avenue, Fox News must report the facts or else the truth of their fact finding will come to light as fraud; however, the White House also must have the same standard of truth and fact finding.  There is nothing to fear, when there is nothing to hide.  Transparency was one theme that was touted by the Obama campaign, but it appears that being too transparent, or allowing a news organization  to help keep one transparent, isn’t good for Presidential appearances.  If one is not speeding, then one doesn’t have to fear the State Trooper in the rear view mirror.  If the Administration is not “cheating” the American people, then what do they have to fear if any news organization calls into questions the policies being implemented?

Obama is following the play books  of dictators who shut down and/or control the media.  Apparently he recognizes what Francis Schaffer stated in his book How Should We Then Live? that “Whoever controls the media, controls the culture.”  The Obama Administration feels as if it is losing control and therefore is clamping down on those whom they haven’t been able to use as their mouth pieces.

putin controls speech cartoon

George Washington v. Barack Obama, the Jury is Out


The life that counts must toil and fight,

Must hate the wrong and love the right:

Must stand for truth, by day, by night-

This is the life that counts.  – Anonymous

There are two phrases repetitively used in regard to the kings of the nation Isreal as found in the Biblical records.  It is black and white when dealing with their morality and character.  “He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord” or “He did what was evil in the eyes of the Lord”.  The narrative included the king’s acts and political decisions as they lined up with his obedience to the law of God.  What the king did affected the nation and the people followed his lead.  Good kings encouraged moral behavior in the people and evil kings lead the people in the ways of the heathen nations surrounding them.

I was reading a section in II Chronicles 24:17-20 this morning, causing me to reflect on the kings of Israel and the “kings” of America.

After the death of Jehoiada, the officials of Judah came and paid homage to the king and he listened to them.  They abandoned the temple of the Lord, the God of their fathers, and worshiped Asherrah poles and idols.  Because of their guilt, God’s anger came upon Judah and Jerusalem.  Although the Lord sent prophets to the people to bring them back to him, and though they testified against them, they would not listen.  Then the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest.  He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands?  You will not prosper.  Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.'”.

I realize that this was specifically written about this kingdom and this specific king, yet does not history repeat itself and shouldn’t we learn what we can from the mistakes of those who lived before?

I wonder what the God of Israel would say about the “kings” of America?  How would He label each man that has “ruled” from the Oval Office?  Should George Washington be the archetype for all successive Presidents as King David was for the kings of Israel?  And if so, how should we rate the leaders of the past 200 years?  Is is too offensive today, too intolerant, to say that a leader does “right” or “evil” in the eyes of the Lord?  Or perhaps, we will just remove the eyes of the Lord all together and pretend He doesn’t exist.

to-kill-a-mockingbird-first-editionAtticus Finch, the lawyer in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird lived in a small town in the segregated South during the 1930’s. He takes on a case to represents an innocent black man against two deceitful white men.  Finch knew he would face hate and prejudice from the community as well as the jury, but he was compelled to speak and act on this man’s behalf because it was the moral thing to do.  He spoke the truth boldly in the face of opposition.

I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do. – spoken by Atticus Finch, by Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

In our Nation’s history, many have been like Finch and have spoken the truth in the face of opposition.  As I write this post, I think about the courageous prophets mentioned in the Bible who spoke out against immorality and called the kings of Israel to repentance.  I ponder whether my pen is mighty enough to effect change in my country and if my courage will waver should the “king and his officials” come against my freedom of conscience and speech.

The direction that America is heading is far more complicated than just liberal and conservative politics.  Political thought stems from a deeper understanding of right and wrong, truth and evil.  Proverbs 27:19 says, “As  water reflects a face, so a man’s heart reflects the man.”  One’s political thought reflects what is in one’s heart.  If the basis of our Nation’s political thought has been guided by hearts that are far from the Truth of the Bible, and I submit that it is, then our Nation is in no better shape than Judah and Jerusalem was in the Scripture. “You will not prosper.  Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.” II Chronicles 24:20

My fellow bloggers, why do you blog?  Is is to make a name for yourself in the vast community of type and thought?  Is it to push to elect a different man or woman?  Or is there a passion to spark a fire of real repentance and change in America?  It begins with us, the individuals, to be willing to be what we require our leaders to be and to hold them accountable to a standard that has been placed so low, that anyone can slither their way into political office if they have enough money and power behind them.  Is this the America we want, or do we demand an America that requires its leaders to lead wearing the same honest shoes that George Washington wore?  Our first President, the archetype to what a President should be said,  “I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” His honesty however wasn’t based on a human standard, for one person’s white lie is another man’s vice; but his standard was the Bible.   We as individuals should live by that standard of honesty and in doing so, require our leaders, from the PTA to the President of the United States to live and lead by such a virtue.

It is better to declare the truth and be rejected, than to withhold the truth just to be accepted.