Some of our friends have a silly and rather crude game they play when they go out for Chinese food and read their “fortunes” on the little slips of paper in the cookies at the end of the meal. Whatever the paper reads, they add, “…in the bathroom.” “You will soon meet a mysterious stranger…in the bathroom.” “You will have great success in your career…in the bathroom.” You get the idea.

I thought of this game the other night when listening to shrill Hillary Clinton give her final concession speech—the one where she reluctantly pretended to be on Obama’s team—at the Democrats’ convention in Colorado. We don’t watch television so it was the only speech from the convention I heard as I was alone and on the way home from taking my dad to the airport; I turned on the radio and listened in maudlin fascination as the deluded woman promised the moon while ironically blaming the current administration for the massive national debt. Of course, she promised universal health care and took credit for dreaming up the idea which was her pet project as first lady, as well as promising clean energy, affordable college, ending discrimination, and other pie-in-the-sky campaign promises which prompted me to make up a variation of the fortune cookie game. Every time you hear a politician promise something they will do for you if you elect them to office, add these words to the end of the promise:

…at the point of a gun.

Where does the money come from for all these things? What if you decide you don’t want free health care, government grants for college, public school for your children, or social “security” in your old age? Can you tell the IRS to take a hike? Yes, that’s a rhetorical question. We all know that jack-booted thugs, or a reasonable facsimile, will show up at your door if you should choose to be so uppity and refuse to participate in the government’s largesse. Did you think that Hillary was going to open her Gucci bag and generously throw about her own personal wealth?

We all nod sagely and sadly and bemoan the fact that the former Wicked Witch of the White House and her socialist cronies might get their clutches on the oval office once again. I don’t want it to happen, and most of those reading this don’t want that to happen, either. But lo, and behold: hard on the heels of Hillary gloating over her historic speech given on the anniversary of the 19th amendment granting women the right to vote, and coming within shouting distance of that coveted place (oh, how she coveted it!), her thunder was stolen when McCain pulled a fast one on her and Obama.

He announced that his vice presidential candidate would be a woman.

Alaska governor Sarah Palin was a brilliant choice from a strategic viewpoint. Hillary and candidate Obama had just finished outlining their plan for a socialist utopia in the midst of a national economic crisis. Disaffected Democrat women didn’t get their feminist dream of a woman in the White House. Evangelical Christians have been dissatisfied with McCain as a Republican candidate and there had been some fingernail biting while waiting to see if he might go with a pro-abortion running mate or (gasp!) even Democrat centrist Joseph Lieberman as his VP choice. The poll numbers show yet another close race, and it had to be someone who could garner some of those nebulous swing votes.

Who better than a pro-life woman?

Oh, how it must have grated Hillary and Obama to praise the “historic” choice of a a female running mate for the Republican ticket. Both were quick to congratulate Governor Palin for receiving this honor. They had no choice because they understand that it is a huge step forward for feminism, and supporting that cause is life-and-death for anyone who wants to be a star in the Democrats’ universe. Governor Palin, a member of Feminists for Life, also understands the huge leap for womankind that her VP candidacy presages. In her first appearance with McCain, using a feminist catch-phrase, she paid homage to Hillary’s reference to putting “18 million cracks” in the nation’s glass ceiling by saying, “It turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling.”

Well, it is very true that politics makes strange bedfellows, and the euphoria over McCain’s announcement was overflowing in the Christian and pro-life community, folks who, for good reason, are quite concerned about the ill effects of Democrats controlling the executive branch of the country’s government. From Eagle Forum to Dr. Dobson, from the halls of Patrick Henry College to the shores of Biola in California, we hear hurrahs for the tough “soccer mom” who has wowed everyone with her conservative credentials and her support of the prolife cause, and especially impressive is her willingness to give birth to a precious fifth child which she knew would be born with Down’s syndrome, a diagnosis which is usually a death sentence for babies in utero.

There is a lot to like about the photogenic, telegenic, articulate, conservative, prolife, mother of five, wife of one man for 20 years, governor of Alaska. But I think that Christians who support her for this political office are destroying the prolife movement and harming the cause of families far more profoundly than any of the obvious enemies of those causes who recently met in Colorado.

Why is it that abortion is so prevalent and accepted in America today? What are the reasons that women “choose” to abort their babies rather than give birth to them and mother them? It wasn’t because one day a madness overtook the female sex and caused them to turn on their young. It was much more insidious and slow-moving than that. There are many moments we could point to in history, beginning with Eve’s emancipation by eating the forbidden fruit, for the genesis of the impulse to selfishly rid oneself of every encumbrance, including male headship and clinging children. But I think that the acceptance of abortion can trace its foundations more to Rosie the Riveter than to Roe v. Wade, which was only the culmination of independent roots that finally blossomed into wholesale slaughter of innocent children. Governor Palin leaving her home to become governor of Alaska, and “choosing” to run for second-in-command of the most powerful nation on earth, is not a coup for the prolife cause, despite her personal convictions, but it is the death knell of the the biblical family as an American institution, and will only bring grief to those who are trying to hold together the shreds of that family vision in the midst of a perverse society.

I know that my friends are now thinking that I’m such a party pooper, spouting such depressing nonsense in the midst of such a prolife victory, callooh, callay! Let’s slow down the galumphing for a minute, though, and examine this situation more carefully…

First of all, why would McCain pick Mrs. Palin, an untried figure on the national scene, as his VP running mate? I know that I’m not alone in my cynicism toward politicians, but during election cycles it does seem as if extraordinary madness and the delusion of crowds overtakes otherwise sensible people, particularly when demagoguery (manipulation through fear) is so skillfully used. “If you don’t vote Republican, then it’s a vote for Obama!” Though he voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Act, which prevents a few heinous murders of infants, Senator McCain is no friend to the prolife cause. He and his fellow Republican congressmen never supported Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act which was introduced every year but ignored every time. He did, however, vote year after year to fund Planned Parenthood with federal money. Think he would appoint prolife judges? He voted to approve pro-abortion justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. And he has been a proponent of stem cell research using the bodies of aborted babies. When the Republicans had control of Congress for six years during the “prolife” Bush administration, why didn’t we see significant gains in the prolife cause? I will tell you…because in order to get elected by gullible evangelicals, the Republicans have to talk the talk at election time and keep the prolife crowd in their hip pocket. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then they lose that ace in the hole, and the dupes fall for it every election cycle. McCain may be in his 70s, but he is not planning on dying in office. Politicians and journalists both act like they are going to live forever (thus, the shock among the fourth estate when Tony Snow and Tim Russert recently passed on in their 50s, and the reverence accorded Chappaquiddick Ted who has been stricken with brain cancer). As vice president, Sarah Palin will be a figurehead on the cusp of greatness but with no real power, unless she is called upon to break a tie vote in the Senate, and ironically she’ll be the hostess with the mostess, entertaining heads of state at Blair House. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who is pro-abortion, by the way) ostensibly wields more power than Vice President Dick Cheney (who is pro-homosexual, by the way), though there is some conspiracy-nut speculation that is tempting to believe, that the current VP is the evil genius behind the Bush administration. In other words, Mrs. Palin is a well-calculated sop thrown to the saps who keep pulling the lever for the Republican ticket.

Second, if Christians support putting a woman on this ticket, and she should become president (as our friend Bret points out, McCain is pushing the limits of the average life span of an adult male in America), then we will have done what liberal feminists could only dream of: put a mother of young children—the youngest only four months old right now—into one of the most powerful positions in the world. While fighting the battle for the “traditional” family on the one hand, Christians would also be supporting Madame President whose husband (whom she already fondly refers to as the “First Dude”) and children would take a back seat to much more important matters of state. We will have to turn a blind eye to God’s explicit order for the family, of course, as outlined in places like Titus 2 where women are admonished to be keepers at home and obedient to their own husbands that the word of God not be blasphemed, because we have much greater things at stake, and in this battle it’s appropriate to put our trust in our horses, our chariots, and our swing votes. Once we’ve opened this Pandora’s box—or been complicit in smashing this glass ceiling—then good luck when the pro-abortion feminists use it as a stepping stone to grasp the reins of power. The pragmatic, short-term strategy might come back and bite us and we just might wish we had put our trust in God’s strategy for family order, established at creation, rather than the role-reversal which we find no biblical precedent for encouraging.

Third, I have heard so many parrot the Deborah argument that I am inclined to pick Deborah as my least favorite biblical personality, though I can’t quite bring myself to do that (I do, however, prefer Jael, who stayed at home and used her warm milk strategy to defeat the great General Sisera). I do agree that Deborah was a great woman of God, but she is in no way a role model for Christian women everywhere to claw their way to the top, though discontented Christian women in this feminist climate want to claim her as their patron saint. As a prophetess, she had direct communication with God, who divinely directed her path with special revelation. Such direct revelation is no longer available to Christians, as Hebrews 1:1-2 makes clear. The canon is closed, and we have all we need to direct us about how families should be structured, as well as how to select men to govern us in both the civil and church realms, written in the Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God. Here is what John Calvin said about the Deborah argument, which he must have had to deal with in his day, as well (commenting on I Timothy 2:11-13, quote found at Bayly Blog):

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

If any one bring forward, by way of objection, Deborah (Judges 4:4) and others of the same class, of whom we read that they were at one time appointed by the command of God to govern the people, the answer is easy. Extraordinary acts done by God do not overturn the ordinary rules of government, by which he intended that we should be bound. Accordingly, if women at one time held the office of prophets and teachers, and that too when they were supernaturally called to it by the Spirit of God, He who is above all law might do this; but, being a peculiar case, this is not opposed to the constant and ordinary system of government.

Though she is not apparently the member of any church, one of the churches Mrs. Palin occasionally worships at is pentecostal (with women in leadership positions, I might add), thus, she may not be averse to an interpretation of the Bible which says God still audibly speaks to people today, but close scrutiny of Scripture does not support such teaching. Deborah’s rule was a shame on the men of Israel, a judgement of God on an apostate nation, and not a model for us to embrace.

Speaking of models, my last argument against supporting this decision is that for the “conservative” crowd to promote the model of family life portrayed by Sarah Palin is hypocrisy of the worst kind, and removes all ability in the future to oppose the liberal agenda which aims to undermine the biblical family model. How clever of Senator McCain, who at one time attacked George Bush for pandering to the “agents of intolerance” in the “Religious Right,” to pander to the same crowd who put Bush in office. By using the one issue which carries the greatest weight with the evangelical voters, McCain may have succeeded in undermining the very group for which he has shown such contempt in the past while using them to achieve his aims.

Does God ordain the means as well as the end? If so, then we are not free to use our own strategies and devices to achieve even the very important goal of ending abortion in this nation. Yes, we are blessed to still be able to use the political process to work toward maintaining (or regaining) freedom for ourselves and our children, and we should vigilantly use those means, but not by being religious vigilantes. God will not bless the aims of feminism, neither the conservative nor the liberal varieties, as the “I did it my way” theology undergirding both leads to death, and can never be prolife. Jesus is still King, no matter who is elected president. Let’s not be like the foolish Israelites and demand another king. That king may make nice promises, but it doesn’t turn out well in the long run.

Essential reading on this issue!
Sarah “Serpico” Palin and the Christian’s Quandary: Part 1
Sarah “Serpico” Palin and the Christian’s Quandary: Part 2
Sarah “Serpico” Palin and dthe Christian’s Quandary: Part 3
John McCain Picks Mother of Five and Member of ‘Feminists for Life’ as VP Candidate
A Comparison of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s Speeches on Feminist Political Objectives and Victories to the Men and Women of America
Did McCain Make a Pro-Family Pick?

Republican Presidential nominee John McCain has tapped Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his Vice Presidential running mater for campaign 2008. Considered from the non-Christian view of political pragmatism McCain’s choice, strategically and tactically speaking is brilliant. Now, no Biblical Christian should be able to vote for McCain solely on the basis of his choosing Palin as his VP but nonetheless from a purely politically pragmatic perspective McCain did himself a favor by choosing Palin.

In this article I am going to examine why, from the non-Christian view of pure pragmatism why McCain’s view is exceptional. Second, I am going to examine the weaknesses that Palin brings to the ticket. Lastly, I am going to probe as to why it is that Biblical Christians cannot cast their vote against Christ by voting for female civil magistrates.

McCain’s choice of Palin is politically incisive for several reasons. First, it energizes McCain’s base which is something the man has sorely need to do since he won the Republican primaries. Because of Palin’s presence on the ticket many Evangelicals will follow James Dobson’s instant conversion and forget McCain’s weak pro-life stance, and McCain’s essentially liberal (neo-con) persona and positions and pull the lever for McCain in November. By choosing Palin McCain has gone a long way towards repairing the destruction that has been done to the Reagan Coalition by the Bush’s. Now, McCain will not treat that coalition constituency any better than the Bush’s have but at this point, with this choice, he has successfully fooled them into thinking that he will. With this choice enough Reagan Democrats will again vote Republican to convincingly give McCain the election.

Second McCain’s choice of Palin is stellar, pragmatically speaking, because it sets up the Republican future. If McCain wins (and I think he will with this choice unless Palin experiences some kind of Eagleton moment) McCain has bequeathed the Republican party a heir apparent that is Reaganesque in her convictions. Republicans have been looking for the second coming of Reagan since he left office and Palin might be the one who fills that desire. Indeed, Palin is such a good choice that her presence on the ticket could have coatails for the Republican party.

Third, McCain’s choice of Palin undercuts the ability of Democrats to tie McCain to George Bush which is has clearly been a large part of their strategy to date. Palin has a persona of fighting corruption within the Republican establishment. She is cast as a Rebel who has never fit into the “good old boy” network. By choosing Palin, McCain underscores his “Maverick” reputation and makes Democrat allegations that McCain will be the continuation of the Bush presidency lose all traction.

Fourthly, on a point I never will get, Palin will gain McCain female votes that he would not have otherwise received. For reasons that I will never comprehend people will vote for people who are like them even if those people they are voting for stand in ideologically contrast to them. Why a former Hillary supporter would vote for Palin just because both Hillary, and Palin, as well as the voter have the same genitalia will always baffle me.

Fifthly, Palin’s executive experience stands in contrast to the executive experience at the top of the Democratic ticket. Were I the Republican campaign managers I would put subtly inject this into the campaign as well as the contrast between Palin’s “Serpico” persona vis a vis Obama’s connections with some very unsavory and unethical people.

Sixthly, it is already obvious that Palin can give a speech. This ability is overwhelmingly under-rated today. It’s importance not only lies in the perspicuous attractiveness that it brings to a candidate but it also communicates mega-volumes about a persons thinking ability. People who can speak are usually intelligent people. This ability to speak adds to Palin’s telegenic presence. Already it is easy to see that Palin is one of those politicians that has a charm about her that draws people. This helps McCain because McCain doesn’t have that in any degree.

Part II, the weaknesses of Palin.

Part III, why Christians can’t vote for female magistrates.

Now comes the “quandary” part. In many respects Sarah Palin looks to be a an attractive candidate. Who could not admire and energetically cheer her decision to have a Down’s syndrome child? Just thinking of her decision to have this child brings tears to my eyes. Who could not want to support her and so stick their thumb in the eye of those in the liberal mainstream establishment who hate any thing that smacks ever so slightly of something remotely Christian? Sarah Palin seemingly has many of the right convictions but according to God’s word she is not the man for the job of Vice President and Christians who take Scripture seriously would be hard pressed to justify a vote for her.

First, Scripture teaches that God’s created order disallows a woman as civil magistrate. Though most American citizens and most American Christians hate it, the reality is that God’s word teaches that Man was to be the covenant head, and that woman was made to be man’s companion and help-meet. Scripture teaches (I Tim. 2:13, I Cor. 11:13, I Cor. 11:8-9) that the creation order was by design and that the teleological end of that creation order, in regard to male female relationships was that man should have positional, authority and leadership priority. The position of men and women in this regard is not something that is cultural, nor is it something that came about because of the fall, but rather the position of men and women is anchored in the creation order. People are welcome to defy that order but someone has to be the one who tells them that the snap-back of reality is painful.

Some will argue here that I am applying something that is perhaps true of the church and the family but is in no way true of the civil realm. This is not solid reasoning. First, Scripture clearly teaches that men are to be leaders in each of these authoritative realms that God has ordained. The man is to servant-rule in the home (Eph. 5:22-24), the church (I Tim. 2:11-14, I Cor. 14:34-35) and the civil realm (I Cor. 11:3, Ex. 18:21). It would be passing strange were God to ordain men to rule in realm of the Church and Family but allow Women to rule in the civil realm. Indeed, such an arrangement would make God the author of confusion. The fact remains, as our climate indicates, that if it is ever argued that women should be allowed to be leaders in any one realm only a matter of time will separate that argument from the argument that allows women to lead in all spheres.

To round off this first point we should answer a ready objection. Some will contend that even though it is not God’s ideal that women lead as civil magistrates that Christians still ought to vote for a female candidate if she is better qualified than her opposing male candidate. The problem with this argument is that such reasoning would lead us to similarly reason that a wife that is better qualified to lead her home than her husband should be allowed to do so on that basis. The problem in such reasoning is apparent.

Second, Scripture explicitly teaches that one qualification for civil magistrate is maleness. Whenever Scripture speaks to the issue of qualifications for those in the civil realm it universally speaks to men. Now, we may wish that wasn’t the case till the cows come home but our wishing doesn’t change what the Scriptures teach. The constant premise of Scripture is that men will be the civil magistrates. A look at Ex. 18:21 and Deut. 1:13 reveals that the call for magistrates begins with maleness. The Hebrew word for ‘men’ in those passages is the gender specific word for individuals of the male persuasion. Further the guidelines in Deut. 17:14-20 for a future King assumes maleness since that future King is to be a “brother” and is forbidden to multiply wives. Further references that reinforce this observation are II Sam. 23:3, Neh. 7:2, Prov. 16:10, 20:8, 28, 29:14, 31:4-5, Rom. 13:1-6.

Now, there will be those who disregard such an argument by saying that “that was just their culture, so naturally they wrote that way.” Such an approach fails to take into account the creation order argument made above. Further such an objection evacuates the idea that Scripture is Holy Spirit inspired. The Holy Spirit chose the very words of Scripture and the words He chose for civil magistrate leadership was male. We may not like it and so we may develop all kinds of gymnastic hermeneutics to escape it but the Scriptures teach what they teach. The explicit teaching of Scripture is that God follows His created order by requiring that civil magistrates, like Elders and Fathers be male.

Thirdly, the teaching of Proverbs on what constitutes a virtuous woman implies a rejection of women being civil magistrates. In Proverbs 31 we find the teaching that the center of a woman’s interest should be her home. This observation cuts deeply on the Sarah Palin nomination because Governor Palin is in a position where she needs to be giving all of her attention to her home. Now, the idea that women should find the center of their reality in the home is passé in our times. This is clearly seen in the Palin nomination, as it seems to be subtly suggested that because Palin has been nominated as Vice President women have now arrived where the really important action is unlike that crummy work of being a wife and mother. Proverbs 31 also teaches that it is the virtuous woman’s husband who sits in the gate (serves as civil magistrate) and not the virtuous woman herself. Now, Prov. 31 does teach that the importance of the virtuous woman is lauded in the city gate, no doubt by her husband, as her works are praised in the city gate. I fully recognize that it is difficult to hear but Christians do women a godly favor by not voting for them in as civil magistrates.

Fourthly, Scripture indicates that female leadership is a judgment against a people. In Isaiah 3:12, the prophet, as God’s spokesman, wails over the state of the covenant community proclaiming, “As for my people, children rule over them and women are their oppressors…” Sarah Palin’s nominee to be Vice President is yet one more indication of God’s judgment against both the nation and the Christians in the nation. It indicates that the Church has lost its saltiness and its light bearing capacity to repel darkness. Further, the fact that so many Evangelical Christian are wetting their pants in glee over this nomination reveals, once again, how Evangelicals are leading the way in applauding God’s judgment against them.

Fifthly, the example of Deborah proves at best that God will use female leadership as a reproach to men to accomplish his ends. Many will appeal to Deborah as an example of God using women as civil magistrates. The problem with this is that the account of Deborah clearly indicates the weakness of men. Also from Scripture we learn that God directly raised up Deborah to do his work, in light of the weakness of men. I seriously doubt that anyone would make the argument that God has directly raised up, in a revelatory sense, Sarah Palin in light of the weakness of men to be a civil magistrate.

Also on this score we must be careful that we don’t take an instance from one of Israel’s lowest and most confused points to overturn the clear and explicit teaching of Scripture on male leadership in the civil realm. God can speak through Donkeys but we would be wrong to set out in the pastures waiting for God’s Word from an Ass. Even so God can lead through women in the civil magistrate but it is sin for us to vote for women against God’s explicit Word in hope that God will give us another Deborah.

Finally, some will argue that as America is not a covenanted nation then Christians shouldn’t have to worry about God’s standards on voting. It is true that America is not a covenanted nation but it is not true that God’s standards therefore do not apply to the Christians dwelling in the non-covenanted nation. Christians for their part must continue to apply God’s standards and that means not voting in favor of God’s judgment.

Everything I’ve read suggests that Sarah Palin is a fine woman. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, though she seems to be ideologically in the right place, she remains the wrong man for the Vice Presidency. Still, because of this Nomination I see John McCain winning convincingly in November. Would that Christians wouldn’t join themselves with this judgment.

I couldn’t help but think of those magnificent outdoor rallies held by the National Socialist Party in 1930’s Germany as I watched the Black nationalist, terrorist connected, Marxist embracing Barack Hussein Obama. In Berlin those many years ago, at those mass outdoor Nazi rallies, the choreography was precision, the rhetoric was magnificent, and the mindless were mesmerized. In Denver last night, the choreograph was precision, the rhetoric was teleprompter perfect, and the mindless were mesmerized.

In order to get to the point of standing before tens of thousands of Germans Hitler had his Goebbels, Himmler, and Rohm that brought him to that point. Likewise, Obama has had his henchman. Men like Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and William Ayers brought Obama to his moment in the limelight. If a man is known by the company he keeps then Obama is a bad man.

In Obama’s speech, he made it clear at the beginning that the role of the Government is to be the provider for the struggling American. This idea has been a theme throughout the convention. The Democrats believe this to be compassion when in point of fact the idea that the government is responsible to look out after struggling people is an invasion of spheres that belong to family and Church. The issue really boils down to security provided by the government vs. freedom of men from the suffocating hug of a Nanny state.

Obama promised tax cuts for 95% of the population. But the problem with this promise is that there is no way that Obama can create socialized Health Care, provide affordable college education for all who desire it, invest in renewable energy and its research and development, pay teachers higher salaries, and provide for free preschool while at the same time cutting taxes for 95% of Americans. Obama is going to do this by going after corporations and by streamlining American government. Somehow Democrats don’t ever understand that people who have lots of money (corporations) are smart enough to either pass on the costs of taxes or to avoid them all together.

Obama promised to eliminate oil dependence in ten years. He did not say how it he would pursue this ambitious goal. At this point it almost seems as if Obama is smoking crack. In my mind there is no way these United States can energy independent in ten years while at the same time maintaining a cohesive social order. People just don’t realize the mammoth undertaking it will be to get this country energy independent, and to do so in ten years from scratch is just foolish. It is not only that alternate energy sources have to be discovered and developed its also that those sources have to be manufactured, distributed, and marketed, on a continental scale. This ambition makes Kennedy’s promise of going to the moon look like child’s play. Indeed, this promise of Obama sounds more like Mao’s promise of “a great leap forward.” Obama can get away with this kind of rhetoric because the average person has no idea what it would take to become energy independent. This promise of Obama’s may be the most disconcerting of all because if he is serious the implications for our social order would be devastating.

The inexperienced Obama made the case that he would be a better commander in chief than the former POW Republican nominee. At this point of the speech Obama became almost combative. Obama made it clear that he is not going to be timid in this election. If McCain is willing to mix it up this is good news for McCain. An aggressive Obama is only going to reinforce some stereotypes that some people have. I don’t say this as a partisan for McCain. It matters very little to me whether McCain or Obama wins. The result is going to be the same.

In short the speech was the same thing we have heard from the Democrats since forever. Since 1972 and the McGovernizing of the Democratic party the Democratic party is leftist, socialistic and believers in big government. Whether the candidate is McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama, it’s all the same rhetoric and all the same policy. Bigger Government. Increased taxation. More spending.

Obama promised that he would never question McCain’s patriotism, believing that the country needed to get beyond that kind of partisan childishness. I believe the reason that Obama did this is not because of his nobility in desiring to raise the tone of the campaign but rather it is because the issue of patriotism is Obama’s achilles heel. If Obama’s past catches up to him before the first Tuesday in November the issue of his patriotism as it pertains to his connections to William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is going to be front and center of this campaign. Obama by his high tone on patriotism is trying to preempt this potential problem.

Obama tried to cut his losses on issues like abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and second amendment concerns, by using extreme examples to suggest that even though we disagree we can come together as a people by admitting that abortions should be fewer, homosexuals ought to be able to visit their dying spouse in the hospital, an illegal immigrant mother should never be separated from her child, or that gun owners in rural Iowa can’t object to declining guns to gang bangers in inner city Cleveland. This makes great rhetoric but there really is nothing substantive in Obama’s observation.

Personally, I’ve never been impressed by Obama’s ability to speak. I know I am in the minority in that observation. I’ve spent a good amount of time reading great speeches. I have spent my whole life listening to great speakers whenever possible. I don’t believe Obama is even a good speaker, though I willingly concede that many Americans are mesmerized by the man’s speaking ability.

Overall the speech was sold as one that would give specifics to the change that Obama has advocated for so long. The specifics that were given were concrete enough to satisfy those who are demanding specifics but still nebulous enough to avoid the necessary details.

Obama was not Martin Luther King tonight. Imagine him instead as a political version of Nat Turner closing in on the political kill. He was the resolute Virgil Tibbs in the Hollywood film “Heat of the Night,” battling against all those who would deny him his place. He was, to paraphrase Joe Biden, a clean, articulate, bright version of Malcolm X.

Over the last 60 years, trillions of dollars have been transferred from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries in the name of promoting development. Through much of that period, many aid recipients actually lost ground economically….Over the years, even the US agency for International Development, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other aid agencies have been forced to admit that the vast bulk of their munificent transfers generated no economic growth and encouraged no market reforms. The conclusion of outside analysts, led by the pioneering British economist P. T. Bauer, have been more damning. Bauer’s studies showed that, by pouring vast sums of money into many of the world’s worst governments, foreign aid has subsidized both socialism and repression.

Doug Bandow
The Burmese Tragedy – Foreign Hindrance – Not Aid
August Issue Of Chronicles

International aid is just more wasted taxpayers money that finds no support in the Constitution. Like the wealth transfer that happens within the States, wealth transfer that occur internationally only serves to squeeze the middle class at home while locking the poor in their impoverishment and emboldening the wicked where ever the aid finally ends up. Foreign aid locks the the poor in their impoverishment because the cash that goes to foreign countries ends up in the hands of the oppressive governments which have a vested interest to see that no change in their country’s social order occurs. Foreign aid emboldens the wicked because it allows wicked leadership in foreign countries to disregard the concerns of their country, comfortable in their swelling bank accounts where foreign aid is usually deposited.

Wealth transfer is only about international cronyism and the destruction of free peoples, governments and markets. When these United States sends money internationally that money has the teleological end of enslaving the average man and woman in those countries while propping up repressive socialistic governments. People who pursue such policies to often measure the success of the policy by the good intentions behind the policy instead of the actual result of the policy. The pursuit of such policies allows the people who support the politicians who implement these policies to tell themselves how noble they are because of how much they care as seen in voting to steal from a struggling Joe American to give to a run of the mill crooked third world leader named Mohammed, Mgube, or Nguyen.
This is another classic example of how compassion gets turned inside out and upside down. Supposedly it is the compassionate thing to support wealth transfer and hard hearted to oppose wealth redistribution. Here we see why the opposite is true. It is hard hearted cruelty to support international trade because such aid steals the opportunity of freedom from those who long for freedom in those countries. People who vote for people who desire to use the government to achieve wealth redistribution are mean no matter any intent to be nice, and their refusal to learn the reality of the way things really are indicate that they are more than a little slow.

Tonight at the Democratic National Convention the Democrats trotted out Loser Swift Boat Kerry, Adulterer and Perjurer Clinton, and The Mouth Biden.

The themes that united their speeches was the attack of John McCain and the contention that America’s domestic (economy) and foreign (war in Iraq) policy is tattered and in ruins. People need to understand that the way party out of power replaces the party in power is by convincing people of economic downturn or of a major foreign policy blunder. The Democrats, by arguing that everything is coming unraveled are only pursuing a course that they would pursue even if the nation were in the middle of Utopian renewal.

It is interesting that many of the Democrats have emphasized family themes in their speeches. The Democrats have to do this because they are the party of weirdo wiccans, hate-mongering homosexuals, and militant minorities. As such they need to give a botox treatment to their family credentials in order to work out the ugly weirdo wrinkles.

Now, everyone here knows I carry no brief for the Republican party but the idea that Democrats can fix the domestic and foreign blunders of the Republican party that the Democrats are complicit in is like saying that a Bulimic can provide healthy counseling for the problems of an anorexic.

All of the speeches tonight tipped their hats to John McCain in terms of personal friendship or real respect for all the he went through in Vietnam, but after that tip of the hat all the speakers tore into McCain as being out of touch with suffering Americans and hard times. The solution for all the speakers was Government coming to people’s rescue. One speaker after another insisted that Government would fix the various problems of expensive health care, expensive college, and lack of jobs.

In his speech Perjurer Clinton couldn’t resist talking about himself. In his speech Kerry was still working to expunge the damage that the Swift Boat truths did to his credibility from four years ago. In his speech Biden politicized his first wife’s and daughter’s death after he was first elected to Senate. This politicization of personal tragedy, (which most politicians do) in my opinion is not a great deal different than flashers exposing themselves in public. There is something inherently diseased about how politicians emotionally expose themselves.

As a side note – If McCain chooses a US Senator as his Vice President this campaign is going to look like a Senate cat-fight.