So, just what is the plan? There has to be a plan. Things have gone on just too long and something has to be done.
What is the leadership up to? I mean, people are hurting, and demanding action. The current regime is corrupt, abusive, and by the way, they're just not our kind of people, right? We need at a minimum a great political victory, and if that won't work, we have people in the wings ready with an armed solution. We're just not going to wait any longer.
Our current "leaders" seem to be ineffective, and are manipulated by the powers-that-be at every junction, and we're just not so sure they're not part of the problem. No matter what we do, it seems things get worse, and frankly, we're just tired of it all.
So, where's our new leadership going to come from? There are many among us with the capability, but with all the weapons arrayed against us, we just can't seem to get any traction. The deck seems to be stacked against anyone with any sense getting anywhere, and when a potential leader tries to emerge, he's crushed by the regime, and no one seems to be able to do anything about it.
But wait, something strange seems to be happening. About thirty years ago, there was a disturbance in a small town to the east, and rumors of a leader emerging, but that can't be true. As it turns out, this guy was born in an obscure town to a people not known for anything of substance. On top of that, he was born to an unwed mother who was so poor he was delivered in a cave. Then, he disappeared back into obscurity only to reemerge as a common workman in, again, a not-so-notable place. It appears to just be another of those rumors, and besides, he's not a great political or military leader, so we just don't see how any faith could be placed in him. And now, we hear this guy has been hunted down, arrested, and will be executed for crimes against the regime, and it turns out his own people turned him in. Yep - same old story - no change.
Yet, as we now know years later, he was the great leader we'd needed, only I wouldn't have done it that way. No, if I'd been in charge, I'd have sent a great political and military leader who would crush the opposition and set things up the way they should be, and we'd be set. No, if I'd had my way, I'd have certainly done it differently, and if I had, I'd have failed miserably, just like all the "leaders" before me.
Instead, what we received was something more monumental and amazing than we could ever have expected. We were given the son of the Most High Himself, who came and instead of defeating an earthly leadership and setting up yet another government destined to fail at some point, He fully defeated the root cause of all our problems - sin and death! Looking back now, the miracle of that seemingly insignificant birth in that third rate town to an unwed mother, out of town, on tax day, and in a cave turns out to be the event that generations will celebrate until the end of time. As it turns out, His plan was much better. No, actually it was perfect.
So, as we look now two thousand years later at a similar political situation in a world still broken,and as we stare through the frustrations, there's one thing we can count on. There is a plan. It is perfect, and unexpected, and inevitable. So, as we marvel at that birth in Bethlehem and that life of only thirty-three years that changed the world, and has the ability to change lives forever, we know there's a victory just waiting around the bend. So take hope. God is still in control. He still directs the affairs of men, regardless of whether those men acknowledge Him or not. And as we look at the life of His Son, and the resurrection that saves, there is still reason to be happy, merry, and hopeful.
So, Merry Christmas! There's a new year, and more pieces of the plan to be revealed just around the corner. Celebrate the Birth. Enjoy the adventure!!!
I've made no secret of my deeply-held belief that Barack Obama is the worst president in our nation's history, and that's saying a lot! The election of 2012 will decide, literally, whether our country survives in any form the Founders established, or whether we join the rest of the failed societies of history that failed, and if we do, we'll fail miserably. Few things are more important in our lifetime. My profession of faith in Christ is the one thing that cannot be affected by what happens to our country. However, everything else will be: My family, my livelihood, everything I own, and what I have to do to survive - all are up for grabs in the coming months, and so it is with you, whether you've realized it or not. It is literally that serious.
I've looked at all the candidates, and here's where I see them (careful - I pull no punches):
- Mitt Romney. No, no, no. If he's the nominee, I'll support him over Obama (that's a no-brainer), but his core values seem to be up for grabs, and he's too willing to compromise his beliefs to do what he thinks he needs to do to get elected.
- Rick Perry. No. He's a mediocre speaker, and now more than ever we need someone who can articulate his position well. He's off base on immigration issues, and he's been too willing to use top-down power to force families to do things that should be totally their decision.
- Ron Paul. No. He thinks we're still in the 18th century, and he's way too focused on the FED (though the FED needs some focusing). He's a one-issue candidate at at time when we're surrounded by multiple problems. His stand on the military and foreign policy gives me some heartburn as well, and he's a lousy public speaker.
- Michelle Bachmann. I like her on the issues, but I'm afraid she's just not up to the job. She'd make a good Vice-President or senior advisor or cabinet member, but I can see her having some problems in a debate with Obama. Also, I don't know if it's just me, but her voice seems to grate on me a bit. I had some of the problem with Palin, but that was offset by her tenacity.
- John Huntsman. No. I'd rather have Romney! He believes in evolution and global warming, and flip-flopped on Cap and Trade. I'm basically concerned about how he'd handle the problems we have, and I'm afraid he'd not debate well with Obama.
- Gary Johnson. No stinkin' way. He's for legalizing marijuana, and admits using recreational drugs in college. He's soft on illegal immigration, homosexuality, and he's pro-choice. He'd probably be the worst of the current GOP crop.
- Rick Santorum. I like Santorum. He seems to be right on all the issues, and I would not hold my nose to vote for him like I'd have to do with Paul, Romney, Huntsman, and particularly Johnson. However, I'm not sure he's the best candidate to put toe-to-toe with Obama. He bears watching, though.
- Herman Cain. I was an early Cain supporter, and I still like a lot of what he has to say. However, he recently stumbled on the abortion issue (I could have knocked that question out of the park, and I'm concerned as to why he flubbed it). His 9-9-9 plan has merit, and he was an early supporter of the Fair Tax (which I heavily support). He has good oratory skills, though he might not be able to completely knock Obama out in a debate (though it would be fun). I'm still watching him close, and time will tell if he peaked too early.
- Newt Gingrich. Now, Newt has some baggage that we're all aware of, and that concerned me early on. However, after researching his life since his mistakes, he's admitted them, sought forgiveness, and his subsequent actions have been spot on as far as his faith and espoused values are. Additionally, whenever he's in the room with the rest of the candidates, he's the smartest one in the room. Watching him speak is mesmerizing, and I can't help but applaud when he speaks. He has imaginative solutions, understands the problems, and is certainly forceful in his policies. Additionally, he'd destroy Obama in a debate, which I'd pay to go see (and that's big!). His experience, his Reaganesque distrust of the federal government, his uncanny ability to speak without notes (or a teleprompter, Barry), and his general oratory skills are unmatched in any candidate running today. His biggest liability is that the press just hates him, and even those more "fair and balanced" don't give him much, so he'd be an uphill-battle candidate. However, view a couple of youtube videos of his speeches, and it's hard to turn away.
So, of all the current crop, right now here's my preferences: Gingrich, followed by Cain, with Santorum and Bachmann tied for third. It'd be find with me if the rest of the crop just dropped out.
Now, I'm a lousy prognosticator, but if I had to guess, Here's what I'd say: Cain is on top now, but he may have peaked to early, and is starting to trip over his own shoestrings. Perry and Romney will probably eat each other up, Paul and Johnson are a bit too la-la for me, and Huntsman just won't gain much. All this means the race, at least in my mind, will be between Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, and Santorum, with Romney showing strong, but never getting above the ceiling he's always been unable to penetrate. Since Gingrich and Cain are both from Georgia, they can't constitutionally be on the same ticket, so a choice will have to be made there. But take either one, and put one of the other top remainders on the ticket with them, and Obama gets defeated, though if Gingrich is on top, I think Obama gets destroyed. I'm good either way. All this, of course, is subject to change
Things may change between now and 11/12, but whoever is the nominee will get my support, even if I have to hold my nose and vote for Johnson (ugh, the thought of another "President Johnson" just hit me!). Either way, Obama has to go, and the more lopsided the victory, the easier it will be for House and Senate candidates with the right values to ride those coattails.
There's lots of work, and lots of prayin' to do in the next 12 months, and we have a greater need for Providential direction in this election than in any since 1776 or 1860.
Well, the war heats up. This November, Mississippi will become the first state in the nation to bring to a vote an amendment to our State Constitution which will define "personhood" as beginning at the moment of fertilization. It's only 21 words, but it's bringing out the wolves who savagely defend their gold mine of death - abortion. Here's the actual language for the proposed amendment:
"The term 'person' or 'persons' shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof."
That's it. Yet, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood through their shadow organization mis-named "Mississippians for Healthy Families" are waging multiple attacks, including the false assertion that this would end birth control and in-vitro fertilization, all in their effort to keep the money flowing at the expense of the innocent.
Other arguments include those concerning rape, incest, and life of the mother, including one that brings up a hypothetical about an expectant mother who's told by her physician that carrying a child full term 'might' result in 'potential' death. These are real issues and cause many concern, until you look at them in the proper light, at which time the answers are much easier, though the problems themselves are still hard. So, let's look at each of these.
First, life of the mother. This is a non-argument. Physicians have never been held accountable for the horrible decision they and a family must make in the extremely rare case where either the mother or the child is going to die, and a choice must be made. This is a medical decision, and is done in other areas all the time. Ever hear of "triage"? So, this argument is just made to confuse the issue, and can be completely discounted. When the choice is between the life of the mother or the life of the child, the family and the physician make a medically-necessary decision. That's it.
Rape and Incest. Look, actions/events have consequences, and you cannot legislate away some consequences. Currently, we just execute the only innocent person in the whole transaction, and the one with no ability to defend himself/herself. Since I find no amendments to the 6th Commandment, executing the child is the savage (literally) taking of an innocent life, and it's up to us to speak for that life when nobody else will. Another thing. While the event and its effects may last a lifetime, a resulting offspring is still the child of his/her mother, and you cannot sever that relationship. The arguments to be made, and one that many have testified to, is that the termination of that child's life adds even more trauma to an already tragic situation. The "quick fix" turns into a lifetime regret. So much for playing God. And remember, adoption is always a viable option, and many organization will arrange this for a new mother.
The so-called "morning after" pill. I'm amazed at the number of people who just a few years ago shook their heads at such a development are now using this as an argument against Prop 26. If this is their only argument, it's a weak one at best. While law resulting from the amendment would most likely relegate this method to the dust bin of history (as well it should be), it is important to remember that the use of the "morning after" pill is used in 99.9% of the time as a birth control for prevention of pregnancy due to consensual sex, not something as noble-sounding as pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
Finally, it you were to concede all of the above issues (which I don't), you're looking at preserving execution-for-convenience in 99% of the cases for the possible 1% that fall into these categories. Is it more humane to execute 1,000,000 to make the lives of 10,000 more convenient? In all other areas of life, we opt for exactly the opposite. Why is this case different? Money and sex - that's it!
Many who call themselves pro-life have been duped into these arguments without thinking them through. I'm sorry, but if you fall for these arguments and oppose Proposition 26, you are the opposite of pro-life. You've just been duped into being pro-death. Is that what you really wanted?
Hard problems many times require hard, but simple, answers. Choose life. You will never regret that choice.