In the last few years, we’ve even seen George Soros backed funds buy many prosecutor races in targeted cities and counties. In just one example, a liberal prosecutor in North Carolina running on the platform of abolishing bail and refusing to prosecute most crimes received about $1.5 million dollars. In previous years by comparison, each candidate typically received only about $15 thousand. This strategy has led to an epidemic of increased crime and unrest across the country due to the Soros-backed prosecuters refusing to prosecute even serious crimes.
Power of the Majority PartyWith the upcoming 2020 elections just around the bend and many voters have already begun to cast their ballots, we like to offer some brief thoughts about the importance of your vote, because you are voting for more than just a candidate. One of the single most misunderstood facts about voting is that when a person casts his or her vote, it is not just for a candidate, but for an entire party, and in the bigger picture, for an entire worldview.
Perhaps the easiest way to explain is to look at the 2108 mid-term elections. Prior to the election, the Republicans held a majority in the House and Senate. We should note that this fact doesn’t necessarily mean the Republicans had a solid majority, since as most people know, all Democrats are solid Democrats, but many Republicans are Republicans in Name Only (RINOs). A prime example was during the Republican’s attempt to repeal the expensive, one-size-fits-all Obamacare disaster and replace it with an individualized, more economical plan, RINO John McCain single-handly dealt one final blow to conservatism with his last vote in the Senate.
Be that as it may, the Democrats won the majority by running candidates proclaiming themselves to be “moderates” in over 30 precincts that had been carried by President Trump in 2016. Videos surfaced of aides to some of these candidates telling prospective voters that, “Our candidate is very liberal, but has to pretend otherwise due to the number of moderate voters in the district”. The “mainstream” media spiked the stories, and the candidates won by promising not to support Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House, and to be an independent voice for their constituents.
Regarding the first of these promises, Ms Pelosi was able to win over enough of these new members by cutting individual special deals to be re-elected as Speaker of the House, and place herself third in line for the Presidency. Regarding the new candidate’s promise of being an independent voice, all but one voted the impeach the President over non-criminal, policy disagreements between Trump and the unelected deep-state bureaucrats.
We’ll come back to these “moderates”, but we first must understand the power of the majority party, or more accurately, the power of their leader(s). The leader of the majority party has enormous power, even if that party has only a one-member majority. First, he or she appoints the chairman for each committee and sub-committees. The majority party also holds a majority of members on each committee. Since any legislation must pass several procedural obstacles in the committees to even get to the legislative body, these committee heads also have tremendous authority. The minority party can’t even bring a bill to the floor without getting an agreement with a sufficient number of members from the other party. It’s not surprising that most legislation never makes it to the body for a vote.
So, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that many of the new “moderates” were sincere in their promises to vote independently, they would still have no control over which legislation the committees and Speaker will bring to a vote. Even if a bill makes it out of committee and they decide to break with the leaders on a vote, they will typically be threatened to either vote the party line, or have the party back an opponent against them in the next primary election. Thus, once they compromised on their “No to Pelosi” pledge, they were basically powerless to keep their promise to their local voters, even if that had been their intention.So, before you cast a ballot, please consider the entire ramification of your vote. We mentioned that when we cast our ballot, we’re also electing a worldview. Although specifics can vary somewhat by candidates, one party generally believes in natural law (from God), freedom of religion, state and local rights, free-market economics, the right to life, security, free speech and other liberties guaranteed by the constitution; while the other typically believes in federal government autonomous control (socially, economically and otherwise), judicial activism, the right to kill babies, and globalism.
Worldly and Godly LeadersIn 1998, pastor and teacher John MacArthur preached a sermon entitled Characteristics of an Effective Leader in which he painted a picture of an effective leader according to the two prevailing worldviews. The secular world typically prefers a leader with the following qualities. “Visionary – that is looking to the future and, in some degree or another, being able to forecast the future and plan ahead for the future. Action oriented – that is more than just someone who muses about things, more than someone who comes up with ideas and schemes, somebody who can make things happen… So, you have this typical picture of a leader: visionary, action oriented, courageous, energetic, objective oriented, paternalistic, egocentric, intolerant of incompetence in others, and indispensible.” Meanwhile, from a Christian worldview, he states, “What makes an effective leader? He’s respected/trusted, takes initiative, uses good judgment, speaks with authority, strengthens others, is enthusiastic and optimistic about triumph, never compromises absolutes, focuses on objectives not obstacles, and leads by example.” We need more candidates fitting Pastor MacArthur’s description of a leader in all levels of government today.
If I could add a personal observance, worldly leaders tend to be life-long politicians, while Godly leaders often serve for a few years, then return to the private sector. There are many exceptions of course, but as a rule, I believe this is often because worldly leaders often attempt to raise government to the level of diety. Witness Barack Obama’s infamous “You didn’t build that” statement implying that private citizens or corporations are basically powerless without government. One other example is the recent mandates closing houses of worship, mostly in the blue states. While liquor stores and marijuana selers are considered “essential” businesses, churches are considered as “non-essential”. In Pastor MacArthur’s state of California, churches are facing tens of thousands dollars in fines hold holding services.
Loud DogmaThis coming Monday, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to begin confirmation hearings. In her previous hearing, in which she was confirmed to the US Seventh Court of Appeals, Diane Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, attached her for her faith with the now infamous statement, “The dogma lives loudly within you”. Of course, what went, and continues to go unsaid, is that the dogma also lives loudly within Sen Feinstein, albeit a completely different dogma. Still, a secular faith is just as much a dogma as is a religious one, even though it is not recognized as such by most people. Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution states “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States”. The Constitution, as Obama once noted, can be a real inconvenience.
Finally, as the percentage of authentic Christians continues to drop in our country, we encourage all remaining believers to exercise their right and privilege to vote.
Post a Comment
We welcome your insightful opinions, but please keep them suitable for family viewing. If you are not logged in, you may post with just your name or nickname by selecting "Name/URL" and leaving the URL field blank. Thank you for your input.