Thursday, December 25, 2008

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Friday, November 7, 2008

Friday, October 24, 2008

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

A Little German History

Bodie and Brock Thoene wrote a series of books about World War II, and this woman is one of the characters. Lori Kalner is a real person (though her name is not really Lori Kalner). She has been sharing the insights gained from a long life and early experience inside Germany while submitting to the Nazi philosophies. Many of her letters warn Americans of the similarities she has noticed.

In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene's Shiloh books.
In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising "Change."

He blamed the "Zionists" around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth.

So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader. Then, when he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him.

Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would.

The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement. It began with praise of the Fuhrer's programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the playyard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school.

My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust.

I will never forget my father's face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children.

That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from Jeremiah 1:4-5…

'Now the Word of the Lord came to me, saying,
"Before I formed you in the Womb I knew you,
And before you were born I Consecrated you;
I appointed you a prophet to The nations."

Soon the children's songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio. "With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!"

Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God's Word, were "no longer there."

Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care? It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as "mercy killing" became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized.

People whispered, "Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer suffering…And, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden."

And so murder was called mercy.

The government took over private business. Industry and health care were "nationalized." (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized. (Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Krystalnacht in the book Munich Signature)

The world and God's word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people economic Change?

Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer's very ancient Delusion leading to Destruction.

What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in the deaths of millions of children. The reality of what came upon us is so horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it.

Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and white newsreel.

When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she could not bear to write them. Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her, "who could bear to read our suffering?"

Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now in the name of the Lord,
unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come.

I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah.

Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the "mercy killing" of tiny babies who are not wanted.

There are so few of us left to warn you. I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million Evangelical Christians.

Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where is passion and your vote?

Do you vote based on an abortionist's empty promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible?

Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb…

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
and before you were born I consecrated you…"

I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth.

I see them again now.

Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of religion.

In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their "tax exempt" status.

And yet I have heard the words of Obama's pastor Damning America! I have heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns because you "Cling to your religion…"

But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages of a book. (Though the Zion Covenant books are mocked and condemned by the Left in America.)

I am an old woman and will soon go to be with my Lord. I have no fear for myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble.

I tremble at the hymns to a political leaders which your children will sing at school. (Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is against the law in public school!)

Your vote must put a stop to what will come upon America if Barrack Obama is elected.

I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived.

The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!

"Do not say, 'I am only a youth,' for to all whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them for I am with you, declares the Lord!"

I am in Prayer for you, and for the Church! Spoken to you in the authority of Jesus the Christ, the Name Above All Names,

Lori Kalner

Sunday, October 19, 2008


By John Wayne

The Hyphen, Webster's Dictionary defines,
Is a symbol used to divide a
compound word or a single word.
So it seems to me that when a man calls himself
An "Afro-American," a "Mexican-American,"
"Italian-American," An "Irish-American,"
What he's sayin' is, "I'm a divided American."

Well, we all came from other places,
Different creeds and different races,
To form a become as one,
Yet look at the harm a line has done-
A simple little line, and yet
As divisive as a line can get.
A crooked cross the Nazis flew,
And the Russian hammer and sickle too-
Time bombs in the lives of Man;
But none of these could ever fan
The fames of hatred faster than
The Hyphen.

The Russian hammer built a wall
That locks men's hearts from freedom's call.
A crooked cross flew overhead
Above twenty million tragic dead-
Among them men from this great nation,
Who died for freedom's preservation.
A hyphen is a line that's small;
It can be a bridge or be a wall.
A bridge can save you lots of time;
A wall you always have to climb.
The road to liberty lies true.
The Hyphen's use is up to you.

Used as a bridge, it can span
All the differences of Man.
Being free in mind and soul
Should be our most important goal.
If you use The Hyphen as a wall,
You'll make your life mean...and small.
An American is a special breed,
Whose people came to her in need.
They came to her that they might find
A world where they'd have peace of mind.
Where men are equal...and something more-
Stand taller than they stood before.

So you be wise in your decision,
And that little line won't cause division.
Let's join hands with one another...
For in this land, each man's your brother.
United we stand...divided we fall.
WE'RE AMERICANS...and that says it all.

And this one by Theodore Roosevelt

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.... A hyphenated American is not an American at all... Americanism is a matter of the spirit, and of the soul...The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans...each preserving its separate nationality.... The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans.... There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American."

Affirmative Action

In late 2002 and early 2003 a new genre of fundraiser began popping up on campuses around the country—Affirmative Action Bake Sales. The bake sale to gain the most publicity was one hosted by Bruin Republicans at UCLA.

Students sold cookies at different prices depending on the buyer’s race and gender. Black, Latina and American Indian females were charged 25 cents for cookies that cost minority males 50 cents. White females were charged $1, while white males and all Asian Americans were charged $2. The Bake Sale brought cries of outrage from a top California Democrat and student groups on campus. President of the Bruin Republicans Andrew Jones said the intent of the sale was to “bring the issue (of affirmative action) down to everyday terms. We wanted to show how affirmative action is racial division, not racial reconciliation.”

Nicholas Taborek, “Democrats Riled by Race-, Gender-biased Bake Sale,” Daily Bruin, Feb. 17, 2003.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Patrick Henry's ''Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!'' Speech

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth -- to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation -- the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable -- and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, "Peace! Peace!" -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

Saturday, September 27, 2008

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

Why Vote Chuck Baldwin instead of GOP or Dem?

The Fallacy of the "Wasted" Vote

If you are like most people, you might say something like:

"The way I see it, there are only two possible outcomes in any election: either the Democrat will win or the Republican will win. I vote for one of these two because I do not want to waste my vote on someone who has no chance of winning."

Roughly 80% of Americans use this procedure when deciding how to vote, and this is unfortunate. Voting for a candidate other than your true favorite has the EXACT OPPOSITE of the desired effect. Let's see why...

"But I don't want to vote for someone who can't win."
Voting for a candidate other than your favorite has the exact opposite of the desired effect. If your beliefs exactly match those of some particular candidate, then you ought to vote for them. Of course, this never happens, so you have to pick the lesser, or the least, of several evils.

Suppose you, and people like you, almost always vote for candidates from one of the two major parties. If you do this, the optimal strategy for the parties is to IGNORE you completely. Since the candidate already knows that your vote is in hand, he can then concentrate on moving the platform AWAY from your wishes, in order to court the votes of people with beliefs far from your own.

For example, many people who like Libertarian ideas always vote for Republicans. What does the party do to reward them? They make policies to win over moderate liberals. Similarly, many people who like Green Party ideas always vote for Democrats, and so the Democrats ignore them and make policies to win over moderate conservatives. Either way, the voters get the opposite of what they wanted, as the Democrats and Republicans move toward the political center.

To give recent example, in this year's presidential race, it is likely that most of Pat Buchanan's supporters will vote for Bob Dole in the coming election. Dole knows this, so he simply ignores Buchanan and his platform, and even tries to make himself look more liberal in order to court centrist Democrats.

Politicians don't need your approval, so long as they have your vote.

"But I dont want that other guy to win!"
Perhaps you feel that if you vote for your favorite candidate instead of a more popular alternative, then things will backfire on you because then your LEAST favorite candidate might win, and if he does then it will be your fault. This is a false fear.

If your least favorite candidate wins, then it is NOT your fault. You personally have only one vote. Like it or not, you are powerless to turn the results of a democratic election. This being the case, your one vote counts for something only in the sense that it represents your approval of some set of principles. Voting is a means of conveying information about what you believe. If you ignore your principles then this information is lost, and your vote really is wasted.

In preparation for subsequent elections, all politicians in the dominant parties continuously review polls and election results to see what voter blocks they might like to try to sway. If your block or party is big enough, these politicians will make some effort to win some of you over by implementing policies that you favor. They would be fools not to, since politicians and parties that enact unpopluar legislation lose the next election. Recall what happened to George Bush after he broke his "no new taxes" pledge.

The only way you can make your vote worth something is to use it to vote for the candidate whose principles are closest to what you really want.

The Clear Conclusion
In short, voting for someone other than your favorite candidate is not only unappealing, but also contrary to your own best interests. The only way to make your voice heard is to actually VOTE, and when you do, vote for your principles.

In the 1996 presidential primaries in South Carolina, Republican candidate Bob Dole spent several hundred thousand dollars running an ad that said:

"Bob Dole is going to be the nominee. Don't waste your vote."
We leave it to you to resolve the paradox.

3rd Parties: What They’re For and What They Do

by Rick Gaber

Third parties shouldn’t really need an introduction. In my opinion they should be widely welcomed as an exciting and necessary part of political activity and policy advocacy. The fact that they’re not has inspired me to go ahead and set down some of the purposes and reasons-for-being of third parties and the benefits and services they provide. In the United States the founding fathers had no intention of prescribing political parties at all, let alone limiting the number of them. In fact, they’re not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. And that's why no fewer than 5 different candidates won electoral votes in each of the first four presidential elections. The dominance of two parties today is mostly the result of the states' using questionable winner-take-all electoral systems with built-in conflicts of interest, which even include allowing the winners to rewrite the election laws and redraw the legislative districts(!). This in turn elevates those people who are willing to compromise principles (if they even have any) to major player status, as it entices them to dilute their messages (if any) and join "major" political parties along with many other politicians with whom they would normally disagree. Besides, it (obviously) disadvantages, if not discourages, any principled competitors from the start.

The primary purpose of third-party candidates running for public office is to call attention to otherwise ignored, misrepresented, or even suppressed principles or issues. Eugene Debs did so for the plight of the factory worker and Ross Perot for the national debt crisis.** There are usually MORE than two sides to every issue – WAY more. And yet despite their hype and hysteria, when the smoke clears, the "major" parties often turn out to be on the same unprincipled side anyway.

The secondary purpose is to get the major parties to adopt the most important portions of the 3rd party platform as part of theirs (The Socialist Debs ran 4 times but quit after not only achieving this, his goal, but after seeing the progressive income tax and the Federal Reserve System, his two most history-changing platform planks, actually become law.).

Third parties give the far-sighted voter a way to make a visible statement and have a greater impact on the direction the country moves far into the future. In 1908 a vote for Debs had at least 33 times the long-term impact on the nation as a vote for any major party candidate (including the Republican Taft, who "won"), by my calculations.

They give the principled and knowledgeable voter a chance to cast his vote without feeling dirty afterwards, even feeling good, especially since every vote really counts to help a 3rd party get or keep ballot access (it's enormously important for helping a 3rd party get on the ballot in the future).

They work to enhance the prospects and credibility of lesser-known ideas and lesser-known candidates, especially the 3rd party's state and local candidates, to gain and solidify ballot access, to expand the party’s influence, to develop an ever-larger national presence, and maybe even to replace or supplant one of the so-called "major" parties.

They serve as what Richard Winger calls an " 'emotional bridge' for voters who have given up on supporting one major party but are not yet ready to vote for the other," and in so doing they don't just lure voters to the polls; in the long run they even help prevent "stagnation and tyranny," (see

Third parties give sources of leverage and ideas to major-party loyalists to "keep the pressure on" their party to adopt or emphasize positions or principles it tends to ignore, abandon or advocate much too feebly.

They provide a vehicle for like-minded people to meet, share ideas, brainstorm, strategize, develop new approaches to public policy, and spin off subgroups to raise public awareness of, and campaign about, specific issues even on a local basis.

Their presence and activity give whoever does win office more latitude and public support in choosing new or different public policy approaches or solutions to existing or anticipated problems, challenges, concerns or crises. THIRD PARTIES ARE WILLING TO TACKLE THIRD RAILS. SOMEbody’s got to be available to do it!

They often work to encourage changes in election laws where the 3rd party, its supporters and other voters would like to see fair and equal ballot access for all parties, or runoff elections whenever no one gets a clear majority, or cross-endorsement of candidates, or preferential voting, or proportional representation, or ease of casting write-in votes, or choice of "NOTA" (none of the above). After all, stupid, unfair, even outrageous state and local election and ballot access laws and enforcement methods have gone unchallenged long enough in hundreds of jurisdictions.

They actually IMPROVE the health of the "two-party system." According to Richard Winger in The Importance of Ballot Access, "Using the criteria of high voter turnout, the absence of gridlock, and exchange of power between the two major parties, we can see that our two-party system was healthy in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s ... [when] our political system contained many vigorous and powerful third parties."

(...and that this is NOT necessarily the only or primary purpose of a 3rd Party is a point often lost on many politicians, journalists and academics, let alone on the general public): They strive to win (which IS possible IF real equality in media coverage, as 3rd party candidate Abraham Lincoln enjoyed, is reestablished).

They give the otherwise ignored, used, abused, betrayed, disgusted, disappointed, frustrated, victimized, insulted, and/or outraged voter a chance to cast a vote without feeling dirty afterwards, a reason to go to the polls AT ALL in the first place, and maybe even to come out of the voting booth feeling GREAT!

"The old parties are husks, with no real soul within either, divided on artificial lines, boss-ridden and privilege-controlled, each a jumble of incongruous elements, and neither daring to speak out wisely and fearlessly on what should be said on the vital issues of the day." -- Theodore Roosevelt
"Third parties are very effective vehicles for forcing issues that neither party wants to address because of their controversy. They are very influential as incubators of ideas.'' -- Prof. Jeffrey Sedgwick, University of Massachusetts-Amherst in The Boston Herald, Sept. 17, 2000

** "It was third parties who FIRST introduced ideas like restricting slavery, granting suffrage to women, establishing minimum wages and controlling child labor... The difficulty of getting on the ballot state-by-state is surely a barrier deliberately erected by the major parties to keep third parties out of the field of play." ~ American University Professor Allan Lichtman on The Jim Lehrer Newshour, Oct. 22, 1996

"The irony is that no leading political scientist who studies political party systems believes that it is necessary to squelch minor parties in order to 'defend' the two-party system. The true definition of 'two-party system' is a system in which two particular parties are much bigger than all the others; it doesn't mean a system in which minor parties have atrophied into non-existence. The last leading political scientist who believed that it is socially useful to squelch minor parties was Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, but he changed his mind over five years ago, and now advocates that election laws treat minor parties equitably." -- Richard Winger, Ballot Access News December 12, 1996

"...when the variety and number of political parties increases, the chance for oppression, factionalism, and nonskeptical acceptance of ideas decreases." -- James Madison

"A sect or party is an elegant incognito devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis Hopkinson, Paris, Mar. 13, 1789

"If parties in a republic are necessary to secure a degree of vigilance sufficient to keep the public functionaries within the bounds of law and duty, at that point their usefulness ends. Beyond that they become destructive of public virtue, the parent of a spirit antagonist to that of liberty, and eventually its inevitable conqueror." -- William Henry Harrison, Inaugural, March 4, 1841

"Look at the tyranny of party--at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty--a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes--and which turns voters into chattles, slaves, rabbits..." -- The Character of Man, Mark Twain's Autobiography"

"Joining a political party is like joining a gang." -- Chris Rock

"If mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

"Not voting is just as bad as voting for evil men because it allows evil to succeed by default. Take a stand with people who support what you really support. Stop cowering and merely complaining about America's pending demise and act in such a way as to truly make a difference." -- Tom Ambrose

"In your entire lifetime, you will probably never vote in an election where your one vote decides the outcome. So why bother to vote at all? The correct answer to that question, the purpose you should have in mind when you enter the voting booth, is: 'my vote can make a difference because it tells incumbent politicians what I believe is right'. My vote simply says, 'this is the direction I want the country, state or community to take.' That's it." -- Richard Boddie

"If your one vote is like one drop of fertilizer in an eye dropper, and you had to choose between giving it to a small but vigorous tree seedling and an ancient, rotting (but huge!) old oak tree, WHICH ONE IS YOUR DROP GOING TO HAVE THE GREATER IMPACT ON? And how much greater would the relative impact be? Especially when you consider all the restrictive, unequal ballot-access laws which CAN make any one vote crucial to future ballot access for a third party. Don't you think those people who can and do THINK LONG-TERM should be the ones most encouraged to (and able to) vote?" -- from

©1997 Rick Gaber. Permission to reprint is hereby granted so long as it is done in its entirety and the source is referenced: .

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Prudence becomes Perverted

by Carl V. Bibeau

How far have we already come down the wrong road? I would say at least 35 years. There is no room left to barter for more time. Our own prelates have rightly convicted all of us in the complicity of allowing abortion-on-demand to continue unabated. Now, once again, another opportunity to choose good rather than evil is upon us in this election year. But rather than challenging good people to seek out the good candidate, some of the same "leaders" are saying we have no choice but to limit evil, by choosing the lesser evil, rather than seek out the good. They say it is "impossible" for anyone other than a Republican or Democrat to be elected President. Therefore, they conspire to allegedly "help" The Faithful to choose the lesser evil by providing them with a voter's guide that compares the "choices," while portraying only two candidates as available. By doing so, they are complicit in supplying advertising spin verbatim, which has been compiled by partisan hacks. Even though evidence is ample that the "lesser evil" abides with an evil considered non-negotiable by Christians, they allow this candidate to present himself with a Culture of Life label. They say that the time to have started promoting a good candidate has long passed. We would have to start now to prepare for the next opportunity. The complicit grant themselves another extension. A culture, used to avoiding the consequences of their actions, think they are righteous and "prudent" in seeking this "extension."

Just as we could never be justified for Salvation on our own merit, we deserve no such extension. We deserve to be judged as a nation for our complicity in abortion-on-demand. We actually deserve the candidate who is the greater evil. But, our so-called moral "leaders" are trying to coerce The Faithful into supporting the lesser evil, by guilt-ing them. The perverse logic claims that if the greater evil comes to power, The Faithful who voted for the good will be partly to blame. Since when is Prudence a slut? Since now, apparently.

Much like an accused murderer, who knows he's guilty, chooses to employ every measure available to him to delay, or even avoid, the deserved consequences, the souls who buy into the escape offered by these leaders, seek to deny responsibility. They lie to themselves. They are seduced by their defense counsel into playing the system, instead of facing the music for their actions.

Just as Christ gave those who choose him freely, payment for their debt of sin, God gives us a truly righteous alternative in a candidate for this election. We are given one last chance, if we indeed have any faith left. Whether or not a vote for this candidate becomes a "protest vote" is entirely dependent on how many still have faith. It's true. If enough of The Faithful decide to select the lesser evil, and only a portion select the good, we will have the judgment (which we deserve) of the greater evil upon us. But if there is enough faith, The Faithful can bring about the election of the good. It's quite poetic.

Thou wouldst save us, if we choose the good. Thy Will be done!

permission granted to reprint or disseminate electronically in its entirety
with credit of authorship, and link to

Sunday, August 3, 2008

If nobody votes for a person because they don't have a chance, then they are always going to be right.

Does it really matter though, if the person has a chance? Shouldn't you do the right thing regardless of the outcome? I'm not saying that you should only vote for Chuck Baldwin and if you don't you'll be wrong. But the way you vote shouldn't be determined by if you think a person will win or not. It should be determined by if that person stands for what you believe in.

Anyway, God is in control of the outcome. He knows who is going to be president. If Obama wins, God will still be in control.

Here is a good article about voting for someone who doesn't have a chance.

The Lesser of Two Evils

On Voting for the Lesser of Two Evils
Many people insist that everyone left of center should vote for Democrats rather than for third party candidates in order to keep Republicans from winning, and then they appear surprised as the Democrats move further to the right. But continuing to vote for Democrats as long as they are perceptibly less bad than the Republicans is precisely the thing that causes them to keep moving to the right, since they pick up center and right votes (and increased corporate funding) but don't lose many left votes.

The fallacy in the lesser-of-two-evils argument is the assumption that a vote has an impact only in the election in which it is cast, when in fact a vote has more of an impact AFTER the election. When politicians get elected, most of them don't behave so as to serve the people who just voted for them (that's over); instead they behave so as to attract votes in the NEXT election, using votes cast earlier as a guide to where the votes are. While your vote will rarely decide the outcome of an election, it will always have this later influence regardless of who wins. The only way to pull the candidates who do win leftward is to vote for people to their left.

Another post-election effect of voting for third parties is that it influences more people to decide that doing so is worthwhile, once they see that other voters are increasingly crossing over. As long as most everyone continues voting for the two major (corporate) party candidates, the potential winners in each race will continue to be two very similar candidates indefinitely (primarily serving corporations and their owners).

Besides, voting for somebody that you actually like is the way this thing is supposed to work, right?


The logic is the same for the right side of politics.

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Chuck Baldwin for President

Vote For Chuck Baldwin!

"Which is more important in elections--winning, or standing firm for principle?"

Don't vote for either McCain or Obama. Vote for someone better, like Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
http://baldwin08. com/
http://www. constitutionparty. com/

You do not have to choose between the lesser of two evils and you will not be wasting your vote.

http://www. constitutionparty. com/news. php?aid=106
http://www. constitutionpartyofwa. com/articles/article_cb_voting_for_lessor. html

Tuesday, April 22, 2008


I went and saw this movie today.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

List of Names

As you may have noticed from my profile, I have an interest in names. I like to make lists of names that I would like to give to my future children. I think names are kind of important, they are in the Bible, anyway.
So if you want to veiw my current list of names, just go to the bottom of the page.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Friday, January 25, 2008