Go to: => TOP Page; ROAD MAP; Search Page; What's New? Page; Emmaus Ministries Page
[COMMENT: I am regularly astonished at the women who will stand up and be counted. OK, guys, where are you!!!???
There are a few Roy Moore's out there, but not many. Especially among the clergy, the vaunted spiritual leaders of ??? Where are they leading? Whom are they leading? Not many to choose from.
Folger gets going about the homosexual issue below, telling the truth about homosexual behavior and its consequences. Worth reading. But she needs to get more specific about the behavior, and force homosexual advocates to admit publicly just what they want us to approve.
As Folger indicates, the evidence is heavily (as in "all") against the homosexual program. But Christians are intellectually oblivious, and do not know how to handle evidence. We typically do not even recognize it when it hits us in the face.
Civil government is the referee for society. The Church is the conscience of society. But our conscience is hardly operating -- too befuddled by pseudo-pluralism and our intellectual oblivion. And so civil government has turned against God and against those who follow Jesus. No wonder Christianity "gets no respect" out there. We deserve it. When Christian men reclaim their intellectual, moral, and spiritual credibility, then the Church will be heard again. And not until.
I am sometimes tempted to agree with Janet Folger on not jumping the Republican ship, that on paper the Republicans are a Godly lot. But I think that is not so. The Republican Party does not have a clear notion of what Biblical government is about. It is still operating on the pragmatic level, the "moral" level, not a truly spiritual level. The Republican Party does not, even on paper, talk about the sovereignty of God over all things, that there is only one government, that of God, supreme over all. All human government originates under that government. We have been scared off by the bogey man of "theocracy".
The real bogey man, the real threat to freedom is first the subversion first of truth, and then inevitably of the Biblical government with which America began. God, and God alone, is the source of both our personal and our corporate, political freedoms. Our founding fathers (and mothers and brothers and sisters -- who supported and/or voted in the Constitution) well understood that - as expressed in the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
The only party which consistently puts forth a Biblical view is the Constitution Party. They need a lot of help getting their message out, but they have the right intellectual and creedal foundation.
Ron Paul is running
for President. He does indeed understand Biblical government. If he
proves to be a sufficient leader, that would be good reason for supporting him.
But I am waiting for him to show that he not only understands Biblical
government, but that he is willing to talk openly about the principles of it.
That would make me switch back for another go at the Republican Party.
Even if he lost a very long shot, it would be worth it for the chance to preach
the good news of Godly politics and to pull Judeo-Christians
together. It might actually begin a movement back toward political sanity. E. Fox]
Posted: April 3, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern
Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If we call the tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?"
The reply: Five.
"No," Lincoln said, "Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so."
Here's another question: If you call a liberal Democrat a Republican, how many Republican "front-runners" do we have? No, just because you call a Democrat a Republican doesn't make it so. And the "Eleventh Commandment" "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican" doesn't apply to Democrats with a plastic "R" behind their name.
I've had enough of "conservatives" who try to appear "reasonable" by embracing high name-ID candidates who wouldn't know a conservative Republican value if it bit them in the primary. I had a guest on my show recently that started to talk about the "reality" of having to accept one of the early front-runners or Hillary Clinton (whose fake Southern accent is sure to deliver her votes in North Carolina). "Who else could possibly win against Hillary?" he asked smugly. Well, for starters, Fred Thompson is tied with Hillary in the polls, and he isn't even running yet.
Let's talk about "reality." History is strewn with the bodies of early front-runners for whom "reality" dictated the nomination just ask Elizabeth Dole, Phil Graham or George Allen. And in August of 1991, an unknown candidate announced the formation of a committee to explore a presidential run. No one ever heard of him. A guy by the name of Bill Clinton. He, incidentally, came from a state with the same number of electoral votes as Sam Brownback.
Reality? On election night 2000, I was being interviewed on the very same station as my "oh so rational" guest. During that interview, the "reality" was that my state of Florida was declared for Al Gore. I vividly remember hanging up the phone and getting on my knees asking God to "take the state of Florida from Al Gore and give it to George Bush." He did. "Reality reports" don't intimidate me so much anymore.
And for the disgruntled "third party" enthusiasts, here's a newsflash: The Republican Party Platform agrees with those of us who stand for life, liberty and the family. You don't "jump ship" when it's our ship we just need the right captain to steer it back on course.
But the captain we need isn't Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani told the 1998 RNC summer meeting the way to get elected is to sacrifice "one principle here or one principle there." Sacrifice principles like "the right to life" here, "the right to bear arms there" and give special rights to homosexuals while you're at it. Even more liberal than the Democratic-controlled New York City Council, Giuliani pushed for cash and prizes for homosexual sex. He then codified the domestic partnership benefits package by granting all city employees tax-funded benefits just for engaging in dangerous homosexual behavior. Mitt Romney wants to subsidize sodomy by rewarding "homosexual (domestic) partners" with taxpayer-funded benefits, as well. Why is this a bad idea? For the same reason we don't hand out the children's book: "Heather's Two Cigarettes" in elementary school. You don't finance and encourage dangerous behavior. But homosexual sex isn't like smoking. Right homosexual sex is three times more dangerous than smoking.
The Canadian Medical Association Journal (Jan. 11, 2000) said, "Among young gay and bisexual men in Vancouver, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has reduced life expectancy by up to 20 years." And according to the New England Journal of Medicine (Feb. 12, 1998), smoking, on the other hand, reduces your life expectancy "7.3 years for men and 6.0 years for women." And that doesn't even touch the other life-threatening risks.
As reported in Jeffrey Satinover's "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth," other studies reveal that homosexuals experience:
Not to mention hepatitis A, B, and C, gonorrhea, syphilis, Gay Bowel Syndrome, anal cancer, anal and genital warts, and domestic violence, just to name a few.
Apparently, it's having somewhat of a negative impact abroad, as well. We just sent $15 billion of our tax dollars to Africa to fight HIV and AIDS over there. Yep. What we need is more behavior that leads to that. Good call guys. And the way you get more of something is, of course, to fund it.
But the Giuliani/Romney "bring your partner" to your health-care provider won't cost that much right? After all, corporations are doing it all over the place. Oh, there's one corporation that doesn't. They said it was "cost prohibitive." That group? The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (The Washington Blade on March 7, 2003, headlines read: "National homosexual lobby cut same-sex benefit for its own employees" "'Glaring hypocrisy,' charges critic after revelation.")
The homosexual lobby admitted what Giuliani and Romney won't. If bringing your partner to your insurance provider is "prohibitively expensive" for the homosexual lobby, imagine how this Giuliani/Romney plan would break the health-care bank. Can't picture it? Go back and take a look at those diseases again.
But his high name recognition has the pundits declaring Giuliani as the front-running "emperor." Well, somebody needs to say it: The emperor has women's clothes. Can't you just see the terrorists holding up pictures of "our president" in drag without the benefit of Photoshop? Oh, and there's plenty from which to choose, including this little number: A dolled-up Giuliani says to "Victor/Victoria": "I already play a Republican playing a Democrat playing a Republican." Look, our country is at stake. This isn't a time for dress-up. (See another fabulous Giuliani outfit and yet some more.)
But don't go running to Romney. Note to conservative wanna-bes: If you want to appeal to the conservative base, when you go on Larry King, DON'T bash the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by calling his mainstream moral views "inappropriate." And how comforting it is that Romney wouldn't change the "don't ask don't tell" policy "now." Will he change it later? Don't ask. He won't tell.
No, Lincoln was right; renaming a tail won't give us a leg to stand on. The reality is we need a REAL Republican. And you just don't get one by pinning a "Republican tail" on a donkey.
Related special offer:
"Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government
Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *