I'm sure you've seen this sign that I saw yesterday, or something like it. I agree - there are many things about the past eight years I'd like to change going forward. But stop and think. Is just ANY change a good change? Have you known anyone who took a tough situation and made it worse through bad choices? Have you ever done this? I have.
I am writing humbly in my own words to urge you to vote for John McCain next Tuesday, November 4, and to ask you to encourage others to do the same.
Our nation needs change - change in leadership and change in hearts - but not just any change will do. Senator Obama strikes me as a highly intelligent, well-spoken, and likable man, and he appears to have a loving family. Electing an African American president would also have great symbolic significance for this country. It would "feel good" to vote for him. But I am not voting for a symbol or a feeling, but for a leader who will make real decisions with lasting implications. Barack Obama promises to bring many changes - some of these reflect poor stewardship of our nation's resources, and at least a few are an affront to our Lord's revealed will.
I do not attempt here to lay out a complete argument for Senator McCain or against Senator Obama. Others have done a much more thorough job of this than I could, and I encourage thoughtful readers to visit the two links included near the end of this message. I simply ask you two questions:
FIRST: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE TO BE OUR NATION'S EXECUTIVE LEADER? I choose John McCain, because of Barack Obama's poor judgment as shown in his choice of mentors and allies, his lack of relevant experience, his unwillingness to break from the "party line" of the liberal Democrats, and the danger inherent in having the presidency and both houses of Congress dominated by the Democratic Party.
SECOND: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE TO FACILITATE OUR NATION'S ADHERENCE TO BIBLICALLY CONSISTENT VALUES OF LIFE AND FAMILY? I choose John McCain, in part because of Barack Obama's overt and radical embrace of abortion rights and his consistent belief in the capacity of government programs to most effectively supervise and order society.
My answer to these two questions urges me to committed support for John McCain in this election. If you agree, I IMPLORE YOU to do the following three things:
1. If you are registered to vote, go out and do so on Tuesday, November 4!
2. Multiply your vote! Urge those in your sphere of influence to support and vote for McCain. Reach out to them - with an email like this one (you can even forward mine), or a phone call, or a friendly conversation. And get them to vote! McCain "supporters" are only helpful if they will actually VOTE!
3. Support the McCain campaign with your time. Wherever you are, there is likely a McCain "Victory Office" nearby (start looking at www.johnmccain.com). These centers are desperately seeking volunteers to make phone calls, knock on doors, drive voters on Election Day, and help in other ways, and many of them are open day and night. I have done this, and I may do more of it - it's not hard, and it's not necessarily too time-consuming.
Most importantly, pray. If you agree with me, please pray for a McCain victory. Whether or not you agree with me, please pray for God's glory, for His mercy on us sinners, for our leaders and for His will to be done.
If you wonder why I have reached these conclusions, I have written more below my signature. In addition, here are links to two web sites that, in great detail and with ample evidence, effectively communicate many reasons to support John McCain, and even more reasons to oppose Barack Obama. I have reviewed them and agree with them in general, though I cannot vouch for the external websites to which they link. I hope you find them helpful:
http://vote.leadhoster.com/
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/
Thanks for reading this far.
Your friend with hope,
Cville2Cville
************APPENDIX***********
I am writing humbly in my own words to urge you to vote for John McCain next Tuesday, November 4, and to ask you to encourage others to do the same.
Our nation needs change - change in leadership and change in hearts - but not just any change will do. Senator Obama strikes me as a highly intelligent, well-spoken, and likable man, and he appears to have a loving family. Electing an African American president would also have great symbolic significance for this country. It would "feel good" to vote for him. But I am not voting for a symbol or a feeling, but for a leader who will make real decisions with lasting implications. Barack Obama promises to bring many changes - some of these reflect poor stewardship of our nation's resources, and at least a few are an affront to our Lord's revealed will.
I do not attempt here to lay out a complete argument for Senator McCain or against Senator Obama. Others have done a much more thorough job of this than I could, and I encourage thoughtful readers to visit the two links included near the end of this message. I simply ask you two questions:
FIRST: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE TO BE OUR NATION'S EXECUTIVE LEADER? I choose John McCain, because of Barack Obama's poor judgment as shown in his choice of mentors and allies, his lack of relevant experience, his unwillingness to break from the "party line" of the liberal Democrats, and the danger inherent in having the presidency and both houses of Congress dominated by the Democratic Party.
SECOND: WHO DO YOU TRUST MORE TO FACILITATE OUR NATION'S ADHERENCE TO BIBLICALLY CONSISTENT VALUES OF LIFE AND FAMILY? I choose John McCain, in part because of Barack Obama's overt and radical embrace of abortion rights and his consistent belief in the capacity of government programs to most effectively supervise and order society.
My answer to these two questions urges me to committed support for John McCain in this election. If you agree, I IMPLORE YOU to do the following three things:
1. If you are registered to vote, go out and do so on Tuesday, November 4!
2. Multiply your vote! Urge those in your sphere of influence to support and vote for McCain. Reach out to them - with an email like this one (you can even forward mine), or a phone call, or a friendly conversation. And get them to vote! McCain "supporters" are only helpful if they will actually VOTE!
3. Support the McCain campaign with your time. Wherever you are, there is likely a McCain "Victory Office" nearby (start looking at www.johnmccain.com). These centers are desperately seeking volunteers to make phone calls, knock on doors, drive voters on Election Day, and help in other ways, and many of them are open day and night. I have done this, and I may do more of it - it's not hard, and it's not necessarily too time-consuming.
Most importantly, pray. If you agree with me, please pray for a McCain victory. Whether or not you agree with me, please pray for God's glory, for His mercy on us sinners, for our leaders and for His will to be done.
If you wonder why I have reached these conclusions, I have written more below my signature. In addition, here are links to two web sites that, in great detail and with ample evidence, effectively communicate many reasons to support John McCain, and even more reasons to oppose Barack Obama. I have reviewed them and agree with them in general, though I cannot vouch for the external websites to which they link. I hope you find them helpful:
http://vote.leadhoster.com/
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/21/the-comprehensive-argument-against-barack-obama/
Thanks for reading this far.
Your friend with hope,
Cville2Cville
************APPENDIX***********
Here are some more details, in my attempt to address questions you may have. In addition to what I've provided, I would be happy to hear from you and to better explain myself. There is much more I would like to say, but time is short.
WHY do I say that Barack Obama has shown poor judgment in choosing mentors and allies? I will mention five names: Tony Rezko, ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright. Each of these has undeniably been a significant part of Senator Obama's adult life. Each has supported his various political candidacies - and he has embraced their support. He associated with each over a period of years or even decades. He has essentially disavowed or minimized his relationship with each - but only within the past year. None of these relationships was accidental, none was incidental and none was brief. Rezko, through whom Senator Obama curiously obtained a home at significantly below market value, has been convicted of several crimes related to fraud. ACORN, for whom Obama was once an activism trainer and to whom he has directed many thousands of dollars, has been indicted and investigated many times in relation to fraudulent voter registration. Ayers, once a domestic terrorist, is today a self-acknowledged Marxist and former neighbor with whom Senator Obama served on two boards of directors, for whose book Senator Obama wrote an endorsement, and in whose home Obama kicked off his political career. Khalidi, a former neighbor and frequent dinner companion to Obama, formerly was associated with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a group once headed by terrorist Yasser Arafat. Finally, there is Reverend Wright, who performed Obama's wedding ceremony, in whose church pews Obama sat regularly for close to twenty years, and who Obama considered a true mentor. From his church pulpit, he has uttered such astounding phrases as "God damn America!", "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," and "the government lied about Pearl Harbor," and he has referred to our nation as the "U.S. of KKK A."
WHY do I say that Senator Obama lacks the relevant experience to be president? I call him inexperienced in both absolute and relative terms. Consider first that he has spent less than 4 years in the United States Senate, has been campaigning for half that time, and has missed roughly 45% of his Senate votes. During his time prior to that in the Illinois state legislature, he many times avoided taking a hard stand, voting "present" rather than explicitly for or against a given measure. By comparison, consider Sarah Palin. Many have asserted that Sarah Palin is inexperienced to be Vice President, yet one may argue that her experience - years as a town council member, mayor, state officer, and governor - is more significant and more relevant than that of Senator Obama. You may believe Senator Obama has more relevant experience (I frankly am unsure). But the fact that this argument even can be made says this: there is significant doubt as to Senator Obama's experience for the highest executive office. And whereas Sarah Palin seeks to be a "heartbeat away from the presidency," Barack Obama seeks to BE the president.
WHY do I say Barack Obama is unwilling to break from the "party line" of the liberal Democrats? Senator Obama is a marvelous speech-giver. One of his themes has been the uniting of the "red states" and the "blue states". Unity between opponents is admirable, but it is only achievable through compromise or conquest/submission. Senator Obama's voting record, such as it is, shows that he has paid nothing but lip service to the notion of compromise. He has not sought agreement with Republicans in any meaningful way - his few forays into bipartisanship have been on completely uncontroversial issues. While Senator McCain's bipartisanship can be maddening to some, it is undeniable in light of his history of sponsoring major, controversial legislation with Democrats like Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Lieberman.
WHY do I see a danger inherent in having the presidency and both houses of Congress dominated by the Democratic Party? I have two main reasons. First, a political party is a political animal, and it will work for its own survival. I would expect an all-Democrat Washington to work aggressively to entrench itself, using all legal means to ensure it can maintain power for the foreseeable future. My second concern is that a small portion of this nation - but a large portion of Democrats in Congress - would like to see this nation move significantly leftward. By that I mean establishing major new government programs, expanding existing ones, and rolling back of some of the "radical" change brought in by Ronald Reagan and the conservatives. Our nation made a major leftward move under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, and another one under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. The programs created during these movements have done some good - but they have done more harm. Of greater concern, history shows that programs like these, once created, are nearly impossible to eliminate. People who may not have needed a government service, once they are acclimated to receiving it, become dependent upon it.
WHY do I say that Barack Obama has shown poor judgment in choosing mentors and allies? I will mention five names: Tony Rezko, ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and Jeremiah Wright. Each of these has undeniably been a significant part of Senator Obama's adult life. Each has supported his various political candidacies - and he has embraced their support. He associated with each over a period of years or even decades. He has essentially disavowed or minimized his relationship with each - but only within the past year. None of these relationships was accidental, none was incidental and none was brief. Rezko, through whom Senator Obama curiously obtained a home at significantly below market value, has been convicted of several crimes related to fraud. ACORN, for whom Obama was once an activism trainer and to whom he has directed many thousands of dollars, has been indicted and investigated many times in relation to fraudulent voter registration. Ayers, once a domestic terrorist, is today a self-acknowledged Marxist and former neighbor with whom Senator Obama served on two boards of directors, for whose book Senator Obama wrote an endorsement, and in whose home Obama kicked off his political career. Khalidi, a former neighbor and frequent dinner companion to Obama, formerly was associated with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a group once headed by terrorist Yasser Arafat. Finally, there is Reverend Wright, who performed Obama's wedding ceremony, in whose church pews Obama sat regularly for close to twenty years, and who Obama considered a true mentor. From his church pulpit, he has uttered such astounding phrases as "God damn America!", "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," and "the government lied about Pearl Harbor," and he has referred to our nation as the "U.S. of KKK A."
WHY do I say that Senator Obama lacks the relevant experience to be president? I call him inexperienced in both absolute and relative terms. Consider first that he has spent less than 4 years in the United States Senate, has been campaigning for half that time, and has missed roughly 45% of his Senate votes. During his time prior to that in the Illinois state legislature, he many times avoided taking a hard stand, voting "present" rather than explicitly for or against a given measure. By comparison, consider Sarah Palin. Many have asserted that Sarah Palin is inexperienced to be Vice President, yet one may argue that her experience - years as a town council member, mayor, state officer, and governor - is more significant and more relevant than that of Senator Obama. You may believe Senator Obama has more relevant experience (I frankly am unsure). But the fact that this argument even can be made says this: there is significant doubt as to Senator Obama's experience for the highest executive office. And whereas Sarah Palin seeks to be a "heartbeat away from the presidency," Barack Obama seeks to BE the president.
WHY do I say Barack Obama is unwilling to break from the "party line" of the liberal Democrats? Senator Obama is a marvelous speech-giver. One of his themes has been the uniting of the "red states" and the "blue states". Unity between opponents is admirable, but it is only achievable through compromise or conquest/submission. Senator Obama's voting record, such as it is, shows that he has paid nothing but lip service to the notion of compromise. He has not sought agreement with Republicans in any meaningful way - his few forays into bipartisanship have been on completely uncontroversial issues. While Senator McCain's bipartisanship can be maddening to some, it is undeniable in light of his history of sponsoring major, controversial legislation with Democrats like Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy, and Joe Lieberman.
WHY do I see a danger inherent in having the presidency and both houses of Congress dominated by the Democratic Party? I have two main reasons. First, a political party is a political animal, and it will work for its own survival. I would expect an all-Democrat Washington to work aggressively to entrench itself, using all legal means to ensure it can maintain power for the foreseeable future. My second concern is that a small portion of this nation - but a large portion of Democrats in Congress - would like to see this nation move significantly leftward. By that I mean establishing major new government programs, expanding existing ones, and rolling back of some of the "radical" change brought in by Ronald Reagan and the conservatives. Our nation made a major leftward move under Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s, and another one under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s. The programs created during these movements have done some good - but they have done more harm. Of greater concern, history shows that programs like these, once created, are nearly impossible to eliminate. People who may not have needed a government service, once they are acclimated to receiving it, become dependent upon it.
WHY do I say that Barack Obama has embraced abortion rights? It is the issue on which he has been most consistent, and it is the biggest single reason I cannot support him. Most of you know that Senator Obama is supported by, funded by, and committed to a pro-choice agenda that borders on being, yes, pro-abortion. You may also know that he famously said of his daughters that "if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." While his statements are well-chronicled in the above links, let me remind you that as president he would be committed to appointing Supreme Court justices who support the Roe v. Wade decision and to championing a law protecting abortion rights, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned. He might also seek to repeal the ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure; as an Illinois state senator, he opposed a bill enabling provision of life-preserving care for infants who survived "botched" abortions.
WHY should I hope John McCain could help the pro-life movement, when neither Reagan nor the Bushes could do it? I wish I could guarantee that he would, but I cannot. McCain is strongly pro-life, but it would be difficult for him to appoint strict constructionist or pro-life Justices who might overturn Roe, since the Democratic Senate needs to consent to the nominees. Besides, some strict constructionist Justice might decide that overturning Roe would create unacceptable ripples in the legal fabric of our society, or a pro-life Justice might inexplicably become pro-Roe (see Justice Anthony Kennedy). But radical legal change has occurred before. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court effectively overturned a sixty-year-old precedent, and it has done the same thing in less famous circumstances. Many of you know that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade would NOT outlaw a single abortion in this country. It would ENABLE Americans in each state to vote on any proposed restrictions on abortions. But this is our starting point politically, along with efforts to prevent crisis pregnancies, support women facing crisis pregnancies and facilitate adoption. Unless the Court overrules Roe v. Wade (or we amend the Constitution, an even less likely possibility), no state in America will be able to prohibit abortions, even with exceptions for rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. I conclude on this point by praising George W. Bush. Amidst many disappointments, I have seen him put forth many strict constructionists to serve in federal courts, and his two appointees to the Supreme Court (John Roberts and Samuel Alito) have been serving as-advertised. When George Bush took office, the informal "vote count" on Roe was that six Justices supported it, while three might overrule it. Today we can say that five Justices support it, while four might overrule it. This is progress! Of the five Justices who still embrace Roe, two are highly likely to be replaced in the next four years. This is a crucial time.
WHY do I deny the role of government programs in effectively supervising and ordering society? This is a complex question, but the short answer is that I don't deny its role. Government has a God-given role to suppress evil in the world. At a minimum, this includes defense against enemies outside our borders and some regulation of conduct within our borders. I also believe that government can help in situations of emergency need and in some other situations. What I reject is the view that government SHOULD tackle every area of human need and that it is CAPABLE of addressing those needs in the way we are called to address them. In short, government care is often not only a poor substitute for relationship-based care, it reflects an abdication of personal responsibility for relationship-based care.
DON'T I care for the poor? Yes I do. Though I am not poor, I do have some experience in working with the poor. There are many in genuine need, but it is not biblical for government or God's people to give money, goods and services indiscriminately to all who lack (see 2 Thes. 3:10). Our nation has always had the poor (as Jesus said we would), and for many years (until the 1900s in fact), our nation served the poor - through churches and through a host of private charitable organizations. God calls Christians to be generous on all occasions - but not blindly generous. Some people need long-term help. Some need short-term help and a restoration to productive life. Some need to recognize that their poverty came as a consequence of their own laziness or destructive living. Government appropriations of taxes often result in "blind generosity." If your heart is generous, you will have more to give if the government takes less. God does not oppose taxes, or even high taxes. But taxes that are used to "spread the wealth around" or for "redistribution," as Obama has advocated, do nothing to promote the industriousness, diligence, generosity, and compassion that God calls us to. Further, this "involuntary, blind generosity" seeks to short-circuit the biblical principle of sowing and reaping (for example, hard work leads to prosperity; overindulging in food leads to weight gain). Senator Obama's claim to support tax cuts for 95% of Americans hides a critical point: over 40% of Americans currently pay no federal income tax. What this 40% (and more besides) would receive under Senator Obama's plan are not tax cuts, but rather unearned money from the government - money that is borrowed or taken from the pockets of others. It's true that in the early church, Christians "had everything in common" and "gave to anyone as he had need." But this giving and sharing was voluntary and joyful, and it was done in the context of relationship. It should be that way today as well. There is much hypocrisy and disobedience in the church and among those who profess to be Christians. There are many, including myself, who need more diligently to seek opportunities to serve others. But this personal responsibility is part of God's plan and is not satisfied by a government program. Over seventy years of aggressive government intervention to help the poor and needy has helped many individuals, but it has done little systematically to combat malignant poverty – while in some ways making things worse. While "the poor" or 1930 were more poor than those in poverty today, they were less likely to be criminals, less likely to get divorced, and less likely to have (or abort) children out of wedlock.
I believe my views here are sound, but I realize that there are good arguments to the contrary. I will not make this my hill to die on as a believer, and I could support someone with whom I disagreed on these issues - in fact, I disagree with Senator McCain on them to some extent. But these only reinforce the other reasons I must oppose Senator Obama's candidacy.
AM I claiming that McCain is the “Christian candidate”? Absolutely not. Both he and Senator Obama profess to be Christians, and I don't know either man's heart. I do believe Sarah Palin to be a Christian, but that is not why I am voting for McCain. I do know that "he who is not against us if for us." On many issues, including a few on which I hold deep convictions, Senator McCain is not "against me." So this year I am for him. I hope you are as well.
WHY should I hope John McCain could help the pro-life movement, when neither Reagan nor the Bushes could do it? I wish I could guarantee that he would, but I cannot. McCain is strongly pro-life, but it would be difficult for him to appoint strict constructionist or pro-life Justices who might overturn Roe, since the Democratic Senate needs to consent to the nominees. Besides, some strict constructionist Justice might decide that overturning Roe would create unacceptable ripples in the legal fabric of our society, or a pro-life Justice might inexplicably become pro-Roe (see Justice Anthony Kennedy). But radical legal change has occurred before. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court effectively overturned a sixty-year-old precedent, and it has done the same thing in less famous circumstances. Many of you know that a Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade would NOT outlaw a single abortion in this country. It would ENABLE Americans in each state to vote on any proposed restrictions on abortions. But this is our starting point politically, along with efforts to prevent crisis pregnancies, support women facing crisis pregnancies and facilitate adoption. Unless the Court overrules Roe v. Wade (or we amend the Constitution, an even less likely possibility), no state in America will be able to prohibit abortions, even with exceptions for rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother. I conclude on this point by praising George W. Bush. Amidst many disappointments, I have seen him put forth many strict constructionists to serve in federal courts, and his two appointees to the Supreme Court (John Roberts and Samuel Alito) have been serving as-advertised. When George Bush took office, the informal "vote count" on Roe was that six Justices supported it, while three might overrule it. Today we can say that five Justices support it, while four might overrule it. This is progress! Of the five Justices who still embrace Roe, two are highly likely to be replaced in the next four years. This is a crucial time.
WHY do I deny the role of government programs in effectively supervising and ordering society? This is a complex question, but the short answer is that I don't deny its role. Government has a God-given role to suppress evil in the world. At a minimum, this includes defense against enemies outside our borders and some regulation of conduct within our borders. I also believe that government can help in situations of emergency need and in some other situations. What I reject is the view that government SHOULD tackle every area of human need and that it is CAPABLE of addressing those needs in the way we are called to address them. In short, government care is often not only a poor substitute for relationship-based care, it reflects an abdication of personal responsibility for relationship-based care.
DON'T I care for the poor? Yes I do. Though I am not poor, I do have some experience in working with the poor. There are many in genuine need, but it is not biblical for government or God's people to give money, goods and services indiscriminately to all who lack (see 2 Thes. 3:10). Our nation has always had the poor (as Jesus said we would), and for many years (until the 1900s in fact), our nation served the poor - through churches and through a host of private charitable organizations. God calls Christians to be generous on all occasions - but not blindly generous. Some people need long-term help. Some need short-term help and a restoration to productive life. Some need to recognize that their poverty came as a consequence of their own laziness or destructive living. Government appropriations of taxes often result in "blind generosity." If your heart is generous, you will have more to give if the government takes less. God does not oppose taxes, or even high taxes. But taxes that are used to "spread the wealth around" or for "redistribution," as Obama has advocated, do nothing to promote the industriousness, diligence, generosity, and compassion that God calls us to. Further, this "involuntary, blind generosity" seeks to short-circuit the biblical principle of sowing and reaping (for example, hard work leads to prosperity; overindulging in food leads to weight gain). Senator Obama's claim to support tax cuts for 95% of Americans hides a critical point: over 40% of Americans currently pay no federal income tax. What this 40% (and more besides) would receive under Senator Obama's plan are not tax cuts, but rather unearned money from the government - money that is borrowed or taken from the pockets of others. It's true that in the early church, Christians "had everything in common" and "gave to anyone as he had need." But this giving and sharing was voluntary and joyful, and it was done in the context of relationship. It should be that way today as well. There is much hypocrisy and disobedience in the church and among those who profess to be Christians. There are many, including myself, who need more diligently to seek opportunities to serve others. But this personal responsibility is part of God's plan and is not satisfied by a government program. Over seventy years of aggressive government intervention to help the poor and needy has helped many individuals, but it has done little systematically to combat malignant poverty – while in some ways making things worse. While "the poor" or 1930 were more poor than those in poverty today, they were less likely to be criminals, less likely to get divorced, and less likely to have (or abort) children out of wedlock.
I believe my views here are sound, but I realize that there are good arguments to the contrary. I will not make this my hill to die on as a believer, and I could support someone with whom I disagreed on these issues - in fact, I disagree with Senator McCain on them to some extent. But these only reinforce the other reasons I must oppose Senator Obama's candidacy.
AM I claiming that McCain is the “Christian candidate”? Absolutely not. Both he and Senator Obama profess to be Christians, and I don't know either man's heart. I do believe Sarah Palin to be a Christian, but that is not why I am voting for McCain. I do know that "he who is not against us if for us." On many issues, including a few on which I hold deep convictions, Senator McCain is not "against me." So this year I am for him. I hope you are as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment