Skip to main content
I frankly can't believe we have to take this election seriously. It won't be close. And it shouldn't be. We have a president who puts American soldiers in harm's way for a dubious purpose in Libya,--and that, without Congress's express authorization--who makes Americans complicit in the murder of children by revoking the Mexico City policy, whose Justice Department is so politicized, it makes Alberto Gonzales look like a statesman. The cronyism is thicker than the lies. They couldn't even pass a health care law without using a highly irregular tactic. When its constitutionality came under challenge, they didn't even have the guts to argue for it in a principled fashion. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court did Obama a favor, and instead they whine about how everyone calls it a tax. Hey genius, that's the only way your horrid signature achievement is allowed under our Constitution. You know, that thing you took an oath to defend.
After hammering Bush and the GOP Congress for spending like drunken sailors, Obama and the Democrats made it all look like a rounding error in a year. The basically Keynesian philosophy underlying the stimulus begun under Bush and expanded under Obama was already ill-advised. But it undermines confidence in the republic when the government loans (which ultimately failed) went to people and firms with connections to Obama.
He's a thin-skinned (incorrect) ideologue who apparently didn't expect that those who resisted his plans might know what they were talking about. Doesn't it seem like he really isn't all that smart? They bristle at the suggestion that he's a socialist, but have you even heard him articulate a positive vision of capitalism once? Oh, he likes (Democratic) rich people well enough. But he doesn't seem to know or care where wealth comes from.
The beauty of being a Republican or a conservative at a time like this is that you don't even have to advocate the wholesale dismantling of the welfare state; you just have to challenge them to provide the proof that all this empowerment and egalitarianism that was allegedly the basis for it all has in fact taken place. In fact, the opposite is the case.
I don't have any illusions that Mitt Romney stands for a capitalism that is as fair and accesible as the dignity of human beings and the gospel requires. But I do know that all Obama is doing is demonizing him, because he can't give us a reason why he should be our president, and evidence that his policies have had a positive impact.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un