LIEBERMAN, SANTORUM, KERRY, SADA

What do there disparate men hold in common? Certainly not political position. Certainly not party. Then what? In a word, it is PRINCIPLE. Whether or not I agree with them, I admire men of principle. Let's go through this short list.

SENATOR JOE LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
Joe Lieberman is a classic Democratic Liberal politician. He believes in Abortion, the Homosexual agenda, and had at one time a 95% rating from Americans for Democratic Action. It has since been 75%. To put that in perspective. Groseclose and Milyo in their study put the mainstream media at 65.2%. THe Senate and House members averaged out to 42.2%. "Fair and balanced" Fox News was just under 50%, giving credence to their claim, and again showing that the bias in the media is so pervasive that "fair and balanced" seems conservative. Fox is actually MORE liberal than the average Senator and Representative! Amazing!
Back to Joe. Joe supports President Bush in the War on Terror and on the Iraqi War in particular. That used to be the norm for Senators regardless of theior political persuasion. Could one imagine Republican Senators during World War II who were reluctant to fight Adolf Hitler being public in their comments abroad as certain current U.S. Senators have been? It is treasonous, and regardless of your position on the War HAS cost many American, coalition, and Iraqi lives. Joe simply put the obvious above partisan politics, and lost to a rather pathetic individual, Ned LaMont. Joe put it all on the line, so despite his poor positions on OTHER moral issues (the war in Iraq is for real a moral issue)m he deserves our prayers and support for reelection as an independent in Connecticut.

SENATOR RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
I have always felt a little uncomfortable around Rick Santorum. He seems brash and a bit aloof. Perhaps that is because of his Pittsburgh orientation. I know other folks from metro Pittsburgh who made me feel the same way, but who were GOLD inside. I believe Rick should be in that category. Despite some waffling on immigration issues, he has on the whole been unwavering in the face of visious criticism and nauseating campaign ads from Robert P. Casey, Jr. He has been stalwart for the rights of pre-born children, and a friend of Christians on almost every issue. He is a Catholic, which I am not, and I do not know how well he knows Jesus personally, but he has proven what a man truly is - one who says the truth and sticks with it no matter what. The waffling on Robert P. Casey on "Plan B Abortion", also known as the morning after pill, the radical Homosexual Agenda, and the War in Iraq disqualify him from consideration by any thinking individual. He acts equivocal on the War in Iraq, but accepts money from Move-On.org, a vicious organization funded largely by the atheist and very dangerous George Soros. The Sugar Daddy of Ned Lamont obviously knows something Casey won't confess openly. Politicians like Casey who tell each audience what they want to hear because they think they have the numbers, including many who will pull the "Big D" for anyone on the ballot no matter how inconsistent and how lacking in moral stature. Rick stands tall in comparison and deserves to be reelected. I wish him the best (and hope he develops a but more touchy-feely side).

SENATOR JOHN KERRY, Massachusetts
In the last election, John Kerry intrigued me and I signed up for his web updates. I saw a man morph and mitrate to the left from what seemed sort of sensible positions. Normally, that would have been enough to keep him off this list. However, once he morphed, he stuck with it. He withstood the deserved assault by the Swift Boat Veterans, the cheesesteak affectionados in South Philly when he ordered Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak, and his infamous "I voted for the war before I voted against it." Here is a guy who changed his mind on some issues and then stuck with it come hell or high water. After Ned Lamont looked like a duck out of water winning the Connecticut primary just before Hezbollah proved Joe LIeberman right, John Kerry wrote a letter in the Wall Street Journal praising LaMont. No one can accuse John Kerry of abandoning his new principles by jumping of a sinking ship. Now I would never vote for John Kerry for dogcatcher, let alone a more important position, but much like a lot of African Americans in Alabama admired George Wallace for letting them honestly know where he stood, I admire John Kerry for not vasilating with the wind as Hillary and others have done, their fingers in the wind to see which way it is blowing. Kerry repeats the same mantras no matter what.

IRAQI GENERAL GEORGES SADA
I have the privilege of meeting the author of "Saddam's Secrets" in August. He has been working with the US in building back the Iraqi military. A Two Star General under Saddam Hussein, this no-nonsense Christian gentleman was valued by Saddam for telling the truth. An Assyrian from the ancient Biblical city of Niniveh, this man was a professional military man. I never have felt affection for the military, and believe that participation in the military is inconsistent with the gospel of Christ, yet Christ honored these men, and I honor the men and women who put their lives on the line for freedom and democracy. I do not doubt or judge those who believe they are in God's perfect will being in the military. The people in the military are ministers of God per Romans 13, and I firmly believe God placed this genetleman in his position for a time such as this. Back in the days when Saddam invaded Kuwait, Saddam had a grand idea to eradicate Israel before the Americans would descend on him. Dozens of planes with chemical weapons were to fly to Israel over Syria and Jordan. Saddam's other generals did not oppose the idea. "Yes men" are easy to find. God made Saddam consult General Georges Sada, whom he knew would tell him the truth as a Christian. Sada told Saddam that US missiles would wipe out 75% of the planes. The 25% that got through would wreak horrific damage on Israel, but Jordan and Syria would be cut down at the knees. Sada told Saddam that Israel would surely nuke Iraq in retaliation, so three countries would be lost in exchange for a significant but not total piece of Israel. Israel exists larelgy intact today. Thank a man who did not consider his own life valuable. He was also in charge of American POW's in the first Gulf War. Saddam's sons wanted Sada dead because they wanted to execute the Americans. Sada put his life on the line for AMERICANS, and I witnessed an American pilot who was a POW meet Sada and embrace him like a baby. Character and principle. I wish this man was an American and could run for president of our country. But he can't, so I wish him the best in trying to avoid civil war in Iraq and working to enable the miliitary to keep order there.

FOUR MEN. FOUR STORIES. Can you add to my little list?

PASTORS AND POLITICS

I have heard Pastors say and do political things which give one great pause. Why do Pastors go out on a limb for politicians? Why do they give either active or tacit endorsement to political animals without making any demands on issues of interest to Christians? Why indeed?

I have heard a lot of political discourse. I have seen much in print. Much on the Internet. Much on the airwaves. Yet, one thing remains a constant. Christians by and large do not understand politics and they often make fools of themselves when they step into it.

Billy Graham stepped into it with Richard Nixon. Tony Campolo stepped into it with Bill Clinton. Pat Robertson has made it into an art form to say nutty political comments.

What galls me the most is to see politicians show up at a church during the election season (never just to go worship God). They use the "G-word" in insipid fashion that would not lend credibility to any testimony. They claim to be for what God is for, even if their voting record is the exact opposite. They ask for prayer while actively fighting what God's people are laboring in prayer over.

It is dangerous to endorse anyone, but certainly, the pulpit of God is for the Word of God. If the politician wants to speak the Word of God, we cannot be prejudiced against them because they are a politician, but we must not profane the pulpit by letting partisan unregenerate politicians speak untruths without correction or rebuke. Watchmen on the wall must be watchmen indeed, and not let wolves mislead their flocks with impunity.

I suggest that Pastors could do a better service by arranging a time OUTSIDE the main worship service for both candidates for an informational session where direct questions are asked about issues of interest to Christians. If they won't answer the question or take a position on the criticial issues of the day, they should not have the right to support from church members. Christians are practically the only interest group to endorse or support candidates while asking NOTHING in return. Either ignore the political process, or else force those involved to do something more than pander to your congregation and go away doing business as usual.

WHAT ON EARTH IS THE POPE THINKING?

A few days ago, the Pope in a speech quoted a great ancient concering Muslim evil and violence. Now, he has backtracked and offered to meet with Muslims on September 25th. The reaction to what he said proved the obvious - Islam has a history of evil and violence from the VERY beginning. ANY objective reading of history leads one to that conclusion. What nation has ever embraced Islam voluntarily? What religion is responsible for conservatively 75% of the persecution today against other religions? What religion TODAY is the least tolerant of ALL religions?

I am not a Catholic, and do not believe the Pope is either a continuation of church leadership from Peter (itself in dispute) or that he is infallible. The same objective reading of history would dispute any claims of papal authority. A simple comparison of papal pronouncements and the Holy Scriptures would show the Bible as the true authority. We could also point out the degrading behavior of many popes over history with many instances of horrific moral depravity. We could also mention the persecution against true believers in Christ during the Spanish Inquisition, during the Reformation, and during all manner of times in history. Therefore, while the Pope's quoted comments referring to Islam were certainly accurate, I am still waiting for the Pope to apologize for Catholic treatment of Protestant Christians as well.

All this aside, a leader who tells the truth never panders. The Pope is in essence stepping down from any spiritual authority by first apologizing for telling the truth, and then granting equivalency to his enemies. More than anything else, this is proof that only Jesus Christ is the head of his church, and that all men, no matter how well intentioned, no matter how well educated, no matter how many languages they speak, and no matter what their regal surroundings, pale in comparison

WHY IS IT GOOD FOR EVERYONE TO VOTE?

I have been amazed that almost universally it is considered the optimum situation for as many people to vote as possible. Why is this? Time after time, in man-in-the-street interviews, the vast majority of people know little if anything upon which to base an intelligent vote. Activists for the political parties transport people to the polls and hand them "sample ballots" with their party's candidates on them.

Hundreds of years ago, one had to be a landowner to vote. While these folks had a physical stake in what went on, the masses were disenfranchised. No one would propose going back to a system where people were deprived of their right to vote based upon wealth, skin color, or the ability to pay a poll tax.

However, we are approaching 40% or more of our nation which pays no federal tax, and these people are very susceptible to vote for people to make those who do pay taxes pay even more. That is the tyranny of democracy warned about at the foundation of our country, and it why we were formed as a republic, and not a democracy. The electoral college was formed as a result of many debates on the issue.

The net result of having open polls, few safeguards against voter fraud (in Philadelphia, for instance, thousands of dead people vote in each election), and unrestricted spending by candidates out of their own money is that people with few if any qualifications to be in office can get elected and remain in office indefinitely. In some venues people vote more than once. "Snowbirds" vote in both New York and Florida.

Why is it considered good for our country if people who swallow whole propaganda and lies and have not even an elementary knowledge of civics vote? There are moves to let people with no loyalty to our country who have immigrated illegally and who don't know the language let alone the issues be allowed to vote. If enough people with no stake or demonstrated loyalty get into a majority position (which has just about happened), our country is truly doomed. That was never the intent of the founding fathers, and NO country on earth who tried that approach has ever survived.

There was no Repubican Party and no Democratic Party when our constitution was written. They do exist now, however, and they are as different as night and day, no matter the pervasive comments that they are all alike. That is not to say members of each party behave along those lines. While most votes in congress are "party-line", there are Republicans who believe more like Democrats and Democrats who believe more like Republicans. That is why I split my ballot and try to choose the best people from each major party and sometimes a minor party and not simply vote a straight ticket.

The Republican Party believes we live in a Republic, which is true. That is our founding. The wisdom of having a republic over a democracy has been proven over and over. Whether a Democrat or a Republican has been in office, our nation would not exist today if the principles of pure democracy had been practiced. Abe Lincoln became president with under 40% of the vote. The slaves would have remained slaves without his Emancipation Proclamation. Iraq would still be under Saddam if the majority ruled. We elected men of character to make decisions based upon their knowledge and wisdom, and this has proven itself superior to any other form of government. When the President panders to polls and has no real position, we run into trouble and our nation is still paying for Presidents who did not understand they governed a Republic. As a by-product, Republicans believe voting is a serious responsibility and that you should be a knowledgeable voter. They discourage people with little interest in government (other that what the government can do for them, of course) from voting.

What are the weaknesses of the Republican form of government? First, it assumes that the leader has true character. If the leader is flawed, the nation can have disastrous consequences. Second, the prejudices and biases of people can perpetutate the status quo. For a long time, things did not change. Then Lincoln made his historic decision and through other presidents such as FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan, much progress has been made. Who but FDR could have forced through the "New Deal"? Who but Reagan could have told Gorbechev to "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL"? Things either stay the same, or they can change rapidly.

The Democratic Party believes we live in a Democracy. That is why they press for everyone to vote, even convicted felons. The more the merrier. They believe that by supporting popular programs that give people money or programs, the masses will support them without regard to fiscal responsibility. That is why polls are so important to Democrats. The President is to follow the people, and not vice versa. While this system is idealized by many, the simple fact is that the majority is not always right. The majority reject Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, but that majority will be proven wrong. The majority wanted to maintain race-based policy in this country. The majority believed in segregation. The majority thought the Berlin wall would never come down or that the USSR would never be dissolved. If we had leaders who simply followed the polls, the tyranny of the majority would have prevented some of the biggest advances ever in our nation and in the world.

What are the strengths of the Democratic form of government? Change can occur VERY quickly. However, it may not be the change everyone desires. I believe the negatives far outweigh the positives. I am involved in the building industry, and when it comes time for a new project in a neighborhood, it is foolhardy to automatically listen to the majority. We never would have new highways, such as the Blue Route, which so many depend on. We would not have churches in neighborhoods because of the NIMBY's. We would have no new supermarkets. Remember in Roslyn, PA all the opposition to the Genuardi Market on Susquehanna Avenue? Thankfully LEADERSHIP took precedence over simple MAJORITY politics.

So, in conclusion, I am not the least concerned when those with no interest in government stay home. I am not concerned with those who vote selfishly stay home because it is raining. It is best for our nation when those who vote do so out of principle and out of genuine knowledge of all the issues involved.