Wednesday, July 25, 2007

A Presidential debate?

I am sorry and do apologize. I had planned on answering the specific question: “What if someone is starving and destitute? As Christians, I thought we live by a higher law and that we see other people through the eyes of God, not through the eyes of any sort of nationalism.” However, I read a newspaper article that led to a change of mind. The plan is to revert back to immigration and the specific question after this one night of straying from the plan.

After I finish the immigration posts, I will do the Creationism posts as also stated earlier. I will deal with each comment received in the order that I received them. Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

As you may know, there was a so-called Presidential debate on July 23, 2007 between Democratic candidates. I say so-called because such “debates” seem to venture further and further way from the traditional debate format and purpose. According to the newspaper article in the Peoria Journal Star (July 24, 2007, page A3), “‘Wassup?’ came the first question, from a voter named Zach….” I guess such should be expected in the media age we are in.

I did not watch the event nor would I. I think the “debates” as done today are of almost no value. It is theater and gamesmanship without sufficient time to really adequately respond. Plus, I’ve said before that until Democratic candidates repent and stop supporting the murder of unborn babies among a slew of untenable positions, I will not vote for a Democratic candidate in any race. And yes, I, at one time, voted a straight Democratic ticket. The first Republican I ever voted for was George Bush in 2000. To my ever lasting regret, I voted for Bill Clinton twice.

I will not vote for Hillary “We are the President” Clinton. I have written a post specifically refuting her “It takes a village to raise a child” concept. Her comment “Abortion should be legal, safe, and rare.” is an admission, as far as I’m concerned, that abortion is the murder of an unborn child. It is an admission of the same because if abortion is not murder, there would be no reason for abortion, an egregiously immoral action, to be rare. Her husband while President approved of United Nation sanctioned murder of unborn babies worldwide and vetoed a bill to outlaw “partial birth abortion.”

That said, I have a comment (or two) about one item mentioned in the newspaper article. Quoting from the article, “When was the last time a presidential candidate was forced to promise to work at minimum wage? That is effectively what happened when a voter asked whether the candidates would serve four years at $5.85 an hour rather than the president’s annual $400,000 salary.

‘Sure,’ replied Clinton.” (Peoria Journal Star, July 24, 2007, page A3) The article did not mention her voice inflection and, of course, I did not hear her statement so I don’t know if she was serious with her response or not.

That said, do you think she replied “Sure” because she knows that is the actual value of her labor and she doesn’t want to rip-off the American people any more than she already has?

Do you think she replied “Sure” because she has already ripped-off the American people sufficiently through her and Bill’s books and Bill’s speaking fees charged around the world so that he can spread his immoral beliefs?

Do you think she would actually only receive $5.85 an hour if she actually did become President? Do you think she would claim she worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Do you think that was her response because that is what she thought the audience wanted to hear? Sure.

Just asking.


Post a Comment

<< Home