Sorry for the latency.  Money making hours you know.

I’ll be glad to address these scriptures. 

As I hope I’ve made clear, I don’t despise Catholics.  Just as in my church, I know there 

are Catholics who are saved and those who aren’t.  All the evils accused of the Catholic 

Church are certainly NOT true.  Those who did evil in the name of the Catholic Church were 

certainly not Christians.  Every powerful venue is used by evil people to do evil.  I’m sure no 

Jew would like to say the Scribes and Pharisees represent Judaism.  

My mother was raised Catholic and I’m confident that she’s saved.  But not because she was Catholic, 

instead because she repented of her sins and sought her salvation through Christ. 

On the other hand, there are many who have died throughout history that never participated in 

catechism, or submitted to the “infallibility” of the Pope.  These the Catholic Church declares were 

not saved because they were not Catholic.  Conversely, Mother Theresa, who was as Catholic as they 

get, has said and done some very unCatholic and let’s say, unprescribed things.  Obviously I can’t 

judge her, nor would I want the job.

I think the Pope will be surprised when he learns that some that he declared ‘saints’ or rather ’he saved’, 

actually weren’t, since that knowledge belongs to God alone.  Remember, for even the unborn God 

declares that it is He alone who declares who is saved:”I will have mercy on whomever I will have 

mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.  So then it is not of him who 

wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” 

Allow me if I may, to put it simply.  The tearing of the veil, God with us, the gift of the Holy Spirit 

dwelling in his temple, the intercessory priesthood of Christ;  the whole of the Old Testament points 

to the need for an intercessory priest and that Christ provides the perfect, and only priest we’ll ever need. 

“For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, 

appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.”   

Hebrews 6:17-20

7’ Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His 

counsel, confirmed it by an oath, 18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God 

to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.  

19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence 

behind the veil, 20 where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest 

forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 7:20 

20 ”And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without 

an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: 

The LORD has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, 

22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.  23 Also there were many priests, 

because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an 

unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God 

through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.  26 For such a High Priest was fitting 

for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 

27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for 

the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests 

men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has 

been perfected forever.” 

Heb 4:14

“We have therefore a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus Christ, The Son of God; let 

us remain firm in His faith.”

Very importantly in the context of Christ’s priesthood: 

Heb 4:16

16 “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help 

in time of need.”

No one comes boldly before the throne of a king unless he has the king’s ear.  Asking another man to speak 

to God for me is not bold.  Asking for another man to absolve me of sins on behalf of God is not the same 

as being before His throne to receive mercy and grace.  It is submission to men STILL.  It makes a mockery of 

Christ and what he died for. 

This is such fundamental Christian doctrine.  We no longer need a priest.    

As for the second verse: 

You cannot build doctrine on an eisegesis.  If you read something, you cannot let it stand on its own and 

declare that it means something that it doesn’t say just because it COULD mean that.  For example, the 

Catholic Church uses the following to declare that Christ’s actual blood and flesh are eaten in the communion. 

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?   The bread which we 

break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; 

for we all partake of that one bread.”   

It does not refer to a magic process of transmutation.  The context is in keeping the communion holy as an 

act, in the face of people eating sacrifices to false gods and demons.

It is human nature to want to be closer to God.  It is also human nature to try to force this to happen on 

more human related terms.  One look at the heathen religions will bear that out.  Even the heathen religions 

that preceded Christianity in the Roman Empire.  Did not the Romans have many gods before Christ.  Don’t 

those in the Roman Catholic church still pray to many other than God?  How is it any different?  Men, 

appointing people Patron Saints.  Dead people to be patronized?  That’s clearly just a continuation of polytheism.   

Protestants as well as Catholics do so many things by reading into the text and finding a way to try to make 

God more real in their lives.  Instead of listening to the Holy Spirit and allowing Him to make them what He 

made them for.

At the base level, you cannot deny that we all extol experiences that are often no more than vivid imaginations 

that have no biblical and often comprehensible meaning.  Bloody statues, speaking in tongues that aren’t 

translated (mainly because they aren’t languages).  What could possibly be the purpose of having actual 

flesh in your mouth, or having an image of an angel in your potato salad?  We’re all still practicing magic. 

The excommunicated Jesuit Eliphas Levi said “Black Magic may be defined as the art of inducing artificial 

mania in ourselves and in others.”

I’m not inclined to call Levi’s works the gospel, but he was a pretty smart guy.  And no, I’m not saying the 

Catholic Church practices black magic.  I mean to say that people do things for a whole variety of reasons 

involving the ego.  Wanting to make themselves relevant, searching for meaning in their lives, etc.   

Let’s face it.  God doesn’t sit at the corner of the bed and sing us lullabies or greet us in the morning with 

coffee and omelets.  His ways are not our ways.  He speaks in a still, small voice.  

I’m sure you would know what’s going on if someone said they skipped through all the radio stations and 

each one spoke a word that coalesced into the sentence; “Susan – go – take – out – loan – and – open – a – 

dress – shop.  Then - buy - a - luxury - car.  – Amen.” 

I guess I would personally describe it by saying, people lie to themselves.   I can’t help thinking of the song 

“Feelings.  Nothing more than feelings” whenever I see people purposefully trying to make God tangible in 

their lives.

Forgive my sarcasm, but I mean to make the point that we are only human, and people want so much more 

from God than what He has in store for them because they don’t understand His purposes for them and how 

truly great those purposes truly are. 

So, the purpose of the communion is, to remember Christ.  Just as the descendents of those who came 

from Egypt were told to remember the tribulations they were brought out of.  Christ in the stomach?  No, 

Christ in the heart.  

John 20 is not known to be said to the 72 disciples, but only the 12 are mentioned.  A proper exegesis of 

the text would be - likely speaking to the 10 disciples.  Obviously neither Judas nor Thomas was there. 

John 20:23 is a controversial text.  Which is also transliterated - 

“If anyone goes away sinning, let them go.  For the same one they make their master, that is who will be their 

master.”  Which could certainly be a warning to not beat someone over the head with a bible until they believe. 

But I personally don’t believe that transliteration.  Only God can forgive sins.  I 

believe it is referring very specifically to the Disciples, who, being in Christ, had received the Holy Spirit as this 

passage says, and since the Holy Spirit is the God who can forgive sins, they become the ‘vessels’, or with regard 

to the Holy Spirit’s indwelling, ‘the temples’, through which God brings people the good news of their salvation.

But if I wanted to do an eisegesis and read into what the text could mean, I could say it means anything I want.  

I certainly don’t see it as a license to run interference for God, as though he’s too busy to handle everyone 

Concerning your forum.

James 1:6 says, “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his 

own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to 

visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” 

Salvation does not come to those who belong to any worldly group.  But those of us who belong to God 

who are in this world and not of this world, it is we who are the Church and the Bride of Christ.

The Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses do similar eisegesis’ to convince people to submit to the authority 

of their churches as well. 

So here is a question again.  You didn’t answer my first one.  Is it lawful for me to eat foods that I know are 

lawful, but when in the presence of a new Christian to whom, in his misunderstanding, I am a sinner?  I know, 

it’s a trick question.  Because, though I commit no offense to God, I should have changed my behavior so as 

not to be offensive to a brother.  My brother can misunderstand, and the result could be his stumbling in his faith.  

I should attempt only to glorify God. Read the text.

Please bear with me on this. 

1Cor 10

27 “If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before 

you, asking no question for conscience” sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not 

eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience” sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its 

fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another 

man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? 

31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, 

either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not 

seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”

Because I may cause another to stumble in what is obviously a problem with his 

understanding, correct? 

So my follow up question is this much more forward.  Why are you not going about in the public forum saying 

“Blessed be the name of the Lord”?  But instead declare the infallibility of the Pope to all mankind and ignore his 

offense to me, when he declares I am not saved as though he had the keys to heaven himself?

In the very verses you quoted, it is Christ who sent His disciples, not the Pope.  He sent them to preach Christ, 

not the church.  He sent them to convict people of their sin.  He sent them to exhort people to believe in the 

Bridegroom that they may become Christ’s bride.  We were not sent to preach of a bride.  Christ never sent 

anyone out to preach the Church. 

I hope I got that out clearly.

Blessings

Sorry for the latency.  Money making hours you know.

I’ll be glad to address these scriptures.

As I hope I’ve made clear, I don’t despise Catholics.  Just as in my church, I know there are Catholics who are saved and those who aren’t.  All the evils accused of the Catholic Church are certainly NOT true.  Those who did evil in the name of the Catholic Church were certainly not Christians.  Every powerful venue is used by evil people to do evil.  I’m sure no Jew would like to say the Scribes and Pharisees represent Judaism.  

My mother was raised Catholic and I’m confident that she’s saved.  But not because she was Catholic, instead because she repented of her sins and sought her salvation through Christ.

On the other hand, there are many who have died throughout history that never participated in catechism, or submitted to the “infallibility” of the Pope.  These the Catholic Church declares were not saved because they were not Catholic.  Conversely, Mother Theresa, who was as Catholic as they get, has said and done some very unCatholic and let’s say, unprescribed things.  Obviously I can’t judge her, nor would I want the job.

I think the Pope will be surprised when he learns that some that he declared ‘saints’ or rather ’he saved’, actually weren’t, since that knowledge belongs to God alone.  Remember, for even the unborn God declares that it is He alone who declares who is saved:”I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.  So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.”

Allow me if I may, to put it simply.  The tearing of the veil, God with us, the gift of the Holy Spirit dwelling in his temple, the intercessory priesthood of Christ;  the whole of the Old Testament points to the need for an intercessory priest and that Christ provides the perfect, and only priest we’ll ever need. 

“For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.”  

Hebrews 6:17-20

7’ Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, 18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us.  19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil, 20 where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Hebrews 7:20 

20 ”And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: 

The LORD has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek, 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.  23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.  26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.”

Heb 4:14

“We have therefore a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus Christ, The Son of God; let us remain firm in His faith.”

Very importantly in the context of Christ’s priesthood:

Heb 4:16

16 “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

No one comes boldly before the throne of a king unless he has the king’s ear.  Asking another man to speak to God for me is not bold.  Asking for another man to absolve me of sins on behalf of God is not the same as being before His throne to receive mercy and grace.  It is submission to men STILL.  It makes a mockery of Christ and what he died for.

This is such fundamental Christian doctrine.  We no longer need a priest.    

As for the second verse:

You cannot build doctrine on an eisegesis.  If you read something, you cannot let it stand on its own and declare that it means something that it doesn’t say just because it COULD mean that.  For example, the Catholic Church uses the following to declare that Christ’s actual blood and flesh are eaten in the communion. 

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?   The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”  

It does not refer to a magic process of transmutation.  The context is in keeping the communion holy as an act, in the face of people eating sacrifices to false gods and demons.

It is human nature to want to be closer to God.  It is also human nature to try to force this to happen on more human related terms.  One look at the heathen religions will bear that out.  Even the heathen religions that preceded Christianity in the Roman Empire.  Did not the Romans have many gods before Christ.  Don’t those in the Roman Catholic church still pray to many other than God?  How is it any different?  Men, appointing people Patron Saints.  Dead people to be patronized?  That’s clearly just a continuation of polytheism.  

Protestants as well as Catholics do so many things by reading into the text and finding a way to try to make God more real in their lives.  Instead of listening to the Holy Spirit and allowing Him to make them what He made them for.

At the base level, you cannot deny that we all extol experiences that are often no more than vivid imaginations that have no biblical and often comprehensible meaning.  Bloody statues, speaking in tongues that aren’t translated (mainly because they aren’t languages).  What could possibly be the purpose of having actual flesh in your mouth, or having an image of an angel in your potato salad?  We’re all still practicing magic.

The excommunicated Jesuit Eliphas Levi said “Black Magic may be defined as the art of inducing artificial mania in ourselves and in others.”

I’m not inclined to call Levi’s works the gospel, but he was a pretty smart guy.  And no, I’m not saying the Catholic Church practices black magic.  I mean to say that people do things for a whole variety of reasons involving the ego.  Wanting to make themselves relevant, searching for meaning in their lives, etc.  

Let’s face it.  God doesn’t sit at the corner of the bed and sing us lullabies or greet us in the morning with coffee and omelets.  His ways are not our ways.  He speaks in a still, small voice.  

I’m sure you would know what’s going on if someone said they skipped through all the radio stations and each one spoke a word that coalesced into the sentence; “Susan – go – take – out – loan – and – open – a – dress – shop.  Then - buy - a - luxury - car.  – Amen.”

I guess I would personally describe it by saying, people lie to themselves.   I can’t help thinking of the song “Feelings.  Nothing more than feelings” whenever I see people purposefully trying to make God tangible in their lives.

Forgive my sarcasm, but I mean to make the point that we are only human, and people want so much more from God than what He has in store for them because they don’t understand His purposes for them and how truly great those purposes truly are.

So, the purpose of the communion is, to remember Christ.  Just as the descendents of those who came from Egypt were told to remember the tribulations they were brought out of.  Christ in the stomach?  No, Christ in the heart.  

John 20 is not known to be said to the 72 disciples, but only the 12 are mentioned.  A proper exegesis of the text would be - likely speaking to the 10 disciples.  Obviously neither Judas nor Thomas was there.

John 20:23 is a controversial text.  Which is also transliterated - 

“If anyone goes away sinning, let them go.  For the same one they make their master, that is who will be their master.”  Which could certainly be a warning to not beat someone over the head with a bible until they believe.

But I personally don’t believe that transliteration.  Only God can forgive sins.  I 

believe it is referring very specifically to the Disciples, who, being in Christ, had received the Holy Spirit as this passage says, and since the Holy Spirit is the God who can forgive sins, they become the ‘vessels’, or with regard to the Holy Spirit’s indwelling, ‘the temples’, through which God brings people the good news of their salvation.

But if I wanted to do an eisegesis and read into what the text could mean, I could say it means anything I want.  I certainly don’t see it as a license to run interference for God, as though he’s too busy to handle everyone.

Concerning your forum.

James 1:6 says, “If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”

Salvation does not come to those who belong to any worldly group.  But those of us who belong to God who are in this world and not of this world, it is we who are the Church and the Bride of Christ.

The Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses do similar eisegesis’ to convince people to submit to the authority of their churches as well.

So here is a question again.  You didn’t answer my first one.  Is it lawful for me to eat foods that I know are lawful, but when in the presence of a new Christian to whom, in his misunderstanding, I am a sinner?  I know, it’s a trick question.  Because, though I commit no offense to God, I should have changed my behavior so as not to be offensive to a brother.  My brother can misunderstand, and the result could be his stumbling in his faith.  I should attempt only to glorify God. Read the text.

Please bear with me on this.

1Cor 10

27 “If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience” sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience” sake; for “the earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? 

31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”

Because I may cause another to stumble in what is obviously a problem with his 

understanding, correct?

So my follow up question is this much more forward.  Why are you not going about in the public forum saying “Blessed be the name of the Lord”?  But instead declare the infallibility of the Pope to all mankind and ignore his offense to me, when he declares I am not saved as though he had the keys to heaven himself?

In the very verses you quoted, it is Christ who sent His disciples, not the Pope.  He sent them to preach Christ, not the church.  He sent them to convict people of their sin.  He sent them to exhort people to believe in the Bridegroom that they may become Christ’s bride.  We were not sent to preach of a bride.  Christ never sent anyone out to preach the Church.

I hope I got that out clearly.

Blessings.

There seems to be a tremendous effort to marginalize and chastise the Principled Voters.  And I would like to point out that the Republican strategizers and the Compromise Voters knew all along that they were going to spit in our faces. 

As I said in my blog "Taking My Ball And Going Home" in November 2006, "Yes already!  Despite our public school educations, we understand the math.  “No vote Republican, Hillary get elected.”"   This was not done without reason.  By then, the win-at-any-cost crowd had already been beating this drum for a long time.

All of the attention we're getting from them these days, they consider merely the necessary policing of ONE of the Republican party's voting blocks.  Of course they believe that because we have fallen in line in the past that we'll do so again when their battle begins against the evil Democrats.  I suppose all of the blogs, articles, monologues and dialogues scolding us for our folly and pipe dreams are not hoped will inspire or incite those of us who are Principled Voters, to hang our principles again and take another giant leap leftward?

I've got news for you, we are the Republican party and you hijacked it!  Proof?  Who thinks more like it's founders?  Not the Compromise Voters or their suicidal Big Tent policies.  Nope, it's us.  You know, those with the gumption to do what's right no matter the consequences.

The Compromise Voters picked McCain in all their political calculations, factoring in that the Principled Voters can be cajoled into holding their noses AGAIN.  If he doesn't win after I don't vote for him, I hope they don't  whine that the country is ruined because people with principles didn't follow their dumbed down math.

Let me put forth some new (old) slogans for the Republican Party:

"When the government fears the people,there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny"

"Better Dead than Red"

"I'd Rather Die On My Feet Than Live On My Knees"

"Stick to Your Bibles, Stick to Your Guns"

"The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance" 

"Slavery Comes Easy, Freedom Comes Hard"

"Live Free or Die"

"I Pray For The Wisdom to Know Right, The Will to Choose It, And The Strength To Make It Endure."

If you rolled your eyes when you read these, I've got news for you that you probably won't like.  Hopefully it will make sick to your stomach.  You are a liberal whether you have an "R" after your name or not.

See you in the soup lines.

Now the compromise voters are blaming the Principled Voters for the Republican Party having a liberal candidate. (see below link)

You people, along with your compromise voting loss of scruples, have lost your minds and your sense of right and wrong.

You'll say and do anything to get your way.  The only thing that delineates you from the Liberals in the Democrat party is your allignment under the GOP.

http://andrews.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/15/abandoning_the_party.thtml

Throughout my entire life, I have never heard of a criminal illegally walking in and killing a dozen people at a gun show.   Gun bans must work.

We had a number of UN-conservative candidates and now have an UN-conservative first pick. He's not 70% conservative as you put it. He's solidly conservative on one (1) subject.

Our candidates are UN-conservative because we have held our noses and pulled the lever at the promptings of the politically calculated, win-at-any-cost compromisers in the past.

Now, if we hold our noses AGAIN, we will be electing someone like Hillary in 8 years just to keep someone who is an all-out, unabashed totalitarian communist out of office.

Slowing the leftward march is no longer enough for us. We who are tired of compromising the country by listening to political expedience are fed up. We are tired of being accused of doing something wrong because we refuse to become a little more liberal every election cycle.

And just like all the other scoldings from those who see political calculation over principle as the truest goal of the Republican Party, as though you think you are being mature among us children, you haven't even addressed the real concerns we have. You just tell us YOUR reasoning and insult us for not compromising to accomplish your idea of maturity.

Read my blogs and you'll know what, at least my reasons for sitting out are.

The Constitution Party, formerly the U.S. Taxpayers Party, under the pressure of the splintering Republican Party, is itself about to splinter, because it keeps getting taken over by bizarre ideals rather than sanity.  It originally claimed that it was "to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations."

In the beginning it was in the mold of traditional conservatism. God, Family, Guns and Constitution.

Now they are promoting Congressman Ron Paul.  A Republican who's not even a Republican, let alone someone who believes in God, Family, Guns and Constitution.

 

Ron Paul is an open-borders, Libertarian anarchist that thinks all people of the world should be treated like Americans with the same rights to and in our own country regardless of their affiliations and loyalties. 

He believes all women should be allowed to become prostitutes, and everyone should be allowed to be heroin addicts. 

Do they believe that just because he doesn't want to pay for these self- and societally- destructive practices with government money that that makes him a conservative? 

As protected by the Constitution as our lives are, it is not meant as a license for everyone to run amok.  The founders who wrote the thing didn't practice the things Ron Paul espouses.

And neither do real conservatives believe such things.

The presidential prospective is bleak.  People are scrambling to get what they want.  But do they really believe they will get what they want?

Where is everyone in the Republican Party?  More appropriately, where is everyone who is conservative?  As so often sounded on my little cazoo here, Big Tent politics, the political calculation that got us where we are today, has conservatives doing the strangest things.

Six or seven candidates step up on the stage, and how do we look at them?  Do we put their words up against their records and say yes or no?  Nope!  

And we have very little litmus drawn from the Republican Party platform, even with how watered down it's become.  Have you seen how it is now a bunch of pliable explanations covering conservative positions and the caveats necessary to suspend them?

We've got so-called conservatives who just aren't.  We literally splintered up to this point, holding our noses for candidates who are only conservative on one or two issues. 

Huckabee -      Pro-life

                     Recently strong on the Fair-Tax

                     Fiscal wash out

                     Recently strong on defense

 

Romney -        Fiscally Conservative

                     Recently strong on defense

                     Clearly caters to voters on social issues

 

McCain -         In bed with Democrats on all but defense

                    Called pro-life by those who don't care that he isn't 

Guilliani -        Opportunist who covers all sides of an issue

                     Strong on defense

Thompson -     Great speaker

                     Some serious mistakes in Senate
 

Ron Paul -       Libertarian anarchist in libertarian anarchist clothing with an R

Hunter -          Conservative to the bone.  Sparkling record.

Tancredo -       Conservative to the bone but not pretty enough

Keyes -            Conservative to the bone but a little excitable

Who gets the early boot and who gets the thumbs up to pass go and collect $200?  With this situation, there were those who failed to be conservative  at all.  They believed they should use their brains instead of convictions to calculate the next best move.  But move to do what? 

They, by virtue of their superior brains, look at us all and say, "We must win at all costs".  But I’d like to remind you that it is that type of calculation that got us into this mess in the first place with Big Tent politics.  We sold our soul for brainy political calculations.  So now were smart, but we’re screwed.

Now here is what we should have done.  We should have converted people to our side with intelligent conversation and strong convictions. 

But you see, the brainy people would have questioned, “What if it doesn't work, and we are then unable to keep the Democrats out of the white house.”

Well I guess then we could have opened up to Big Tent politics.  Look how far that’s gotten us.                      

How frustrating to have your opinion and reasonings so ignored and the argument continually cast in the light of your opponent's characterization.

Requiring a president have an "R" after his name regardless of his beliefs has got a certain ring to it historically.  If this is your stake in this struggle going on within the Republican party, I'd like to remind you of the party's founder and what he believed.  I ask that you sincerely search your heart and consider what it is that you are doing.

Our opposition to John McCain and our willingness to allow the vote to go to Hillary is not a conscious decision to sabotage the country for the sake of our principles.

We are not dedicated to the Republican Party.  As much good has been done under that name, and as profound as its origins are, even its founders are not dedicated to it. 

We and they are dedicated to something much bigger – what is right.

‘But Tanglelad, don’t you understand that you risk America?’ 

Stop right there.  If we, as our forerunners and the founders of the Republican Party, namely Abraham Lincoln, were to succumb to the pressure of making political calculation and compromise more important than our beliefs and principles, we become those who oppose us.  Namely, liberals.  Compromise of values and morals is the very institution that separates liberals from conservatives.

Abraham Lincoln firmly believed in the institution of compromise.  But understand that he believed in self compromise.  He believed in compromise that showed an open hand to neighbors and enemies.  He made mistakes in compromise, but he stood firm to not compromise what is right and certainly to not compromise those he was responsible for.  He believed in self-sacrifice.  He believed that one compromises what he can under the grace of God, but once the demand was made for the compromise of righteousness, he pulled out a gun.

The determination to be uncompromising is not puritanical.  But there has to be wisdom.  There has to be a point of rejection of policy and practice:

    "The true rule, in determining to embrace or reject any thing, is not whether it has any evil in it; but whether it has more of evil than of good. There are few things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost every thing ... is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded."
 

Don’t confuse his wise willingness to compromise himself as weakness, reflect on how he would have dealt with half of the Democrats in today's Congress:

    "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged."

Don't we as Republicans think these very thoughts every time someone attackes out troops?  Where do our values lie today?  With principle or compromise?

On trying to win at any cost:

    "Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can," he wrote in a lecture for lawyers.  "Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser--in fees, and expenses, and waste of time."  August 2004 

On stopping the status quo and pulling our heads out of our liberalized positions and stepping up to the plate:

    “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
December 1, 1862

If this means watching the Republican Party crash in order to keep from compromising what is right, or even suffering the accusation that we could have stopped a known socialist from gaining power, so be it.  We will not follow the Compromise Voters whether they have the name Republican or not.  We are dedicated to the founding principles and that is where we are.  It is the Compromise Voters that have left us and are taking the name Republican with them.

Jim Jones, Jim Baker, and the innumerable other preachers that have or have not washed-out stick a bible in the air and declare themselves Christians.  I choose not to follow because I know what they are.  I choose to stay who I am and what I am no matter how much they soil the name.

We all have to face God one day and he isn’t going to judge how we didn’t keep Hillary out of office, He will judge whether we remained strong even in the face of opposition from our own people.

Finally this I believe is how those of us who are principles voters feel we must contend with liberals and most especially now, the Compromise Republican Voters:

    "If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what's said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference." 

 

I say – Amen.

With the John McCain's annointment in trouble, the compromise voters are scrambling to bring every argument to the table in an effort to convince us principled voters to hold our noses and vote for him. 

Here is the classic line from every one of them from those in his campaign to Joseph Leiberman, 'Now listen, I disagree with John McCain on a number of issues, but I believe he is a man of strong convictions who will do what he believes is right and not back down.'

Now they are bringing up the issues of judges that will be appointed by the next president, and without fail they are guaranteeing us that John McCain will be the man who appointed strict constructionists.  As if that guarantee can be called upon in the future.

No matter what they bring up, it will not trump the fact that John McCain has sold out the American people for decades as a compromise-liberal Senator and will do so even more as President.

Even when the primary is over and it's Hillary against McCain, they will expect us to fall in line. 

I'll fall in line.  I'd rather stand in the soup lines than to sell my soul any further.

Get a clue.  If you would have stood your ground and voted for a real conservative to begin with, you wouldn't be afraid right now.

Stop holding on to your fantasies and selling us down the river. 

Here's a new concept in politics.  Do what's right over what's politically expedient.  Stand your ground and think of your children while you do it.  Pray to God for strength and never surrender.

I've decided to no longer be a protestant voter who sits out the election. 

I was pretty upset when John McCain was prematurely declared the Republican nominee for president.  I'd listened and read what I could and just couldn't see it happen.  I had a completely emotional response and then declared that my principles were at stake.  "Nope.  No way, I'm not going to vote."

I wrote half a dozen blogs on what I thought and how I felt about it, but something has been tugging at the back of my mind.  I've reflected on this quite a bit, and I believe I understand that with the characterization of a candidate's words and record so often incorrect and misleading, I cannot, in good conscience, withhold my vote during such an important election with so much at stake.

When I was 15, Ronald Reagan was running for president.  I would hear his name and then stupidly blurt out "He's a war monger, man!"  Parroting the rhetoric I'd heard so often from his opponents.  Nothing could have been further from the truth, and I know.  Because four years later I was in the Marine Corps and he was my Commander In Chief.  His eight years in office were some of the most peaceful years in American history.

These circumstances are what drew me to the Republican Party.

Critics of a candidate may get so caught up in what they believe is the right thing to do, that they lose sight of what is important and even what is truthful.  Even I, in the assurance of my beliefs and knowledge, have turned and tumbled down that rocky path and thought it necessary to place them above our nation's needs.

I don't want to be selfish, AND I don't want to be guilty of not taking the right stance for our country just because it's a tough decision.

Knowing how what's said of a candidate is often exactly the opposite of the truth, I've decided now to vote.  And I need some guidance.

Should I vote for Hillary or Barack?

Among a whole world of missed reasons, I'd like to make perfectly clear what the opinion of the Sit-Out voters is of our critics, the GOP and all of their Compromise Voters:

we have been led down this path that says we need to allow NON-conservatives into the party.

we are not interested in maintaining the Republican party at all costs,

we are not focussed on beating Hillary, you are.

we are interested in values, morals and the founding principles.  Clearly foreign positions to you.

all the scolding by those who think they are being so much more mature than us should be evidence enough that we are being further manipulated into a politically suicidal culture.

lose the election, storm off and blame us, and in 25 years hindsight will show that it was really the fault of the Republican party who left us for a political survival plan that involved climbing into bed with the enemy.

When you are in contention with someone, what is the proof that you are right?  One way is to determine what's NOT being said. 

 

The reason for this is that what is not being said undermines arguments, or distracts from the agenda.  Liberals are well aware of this and that is where we get phrases like “duck of the day”, “or dodging the question”.  If your position cannot survive real scrutiny in the public forum, it is likely to tremendously lack credibility.

 

In our frustration some have been trying to get this point across with sarcasm.  Forced into this position, we declare our disgust with a pledge to vote for Hillary.  As if!!  But with regard to what is now being called the “suicide vote”, what those like me are saying is still being avoided, and the characterization by those who disagree with us is being kept up front.

 

We’re not even being told to hold-our-nose-and-vote, but we just get the same thing over and over again.

 

-McCain is better than Hillary

-McCain has some qualities

-We’re so disappointed in you

-We’ll blame you if Hillary wins

 

Nothing has been hidden in the discussions of us “suicide voters”.  We have addressed every accusation and manipulation.  But our reasons for not voting have not been address by our critics. 

 

If you are shaking your head, please let me finish this point.  Among other things, we mention the fact that the policy compromises of the pseudo-conservatives such as the “big-tent” Republican push, have brought us to the point we are at now, where political calculation trumps principle.  Those who were selfish enough to vote for Ross Perot were blamed for Bill Clinton getting into office, instead of the GOP taking the blame for soiling the face of conservatism for political expediency, ie., the Log Cabin Republicans, and so on. 

"No, no, no, no, real conservatives are guilty for not following the new morals.  Shame, shame, shame."

That is what I mean when I say that the crickets are chirping on the other end.

 

We’ve mentioned that if the Democrats came out calling for absolute totalitarianism, this compromise vote mentality would have us voting for Hillary simply if she changed her affiliation to Republican.  Has this compromise mentality been addressed and discussed openly by the GOP?

Like children playing at charade, the one with the answer is avoided, so as not to spoil the game.

Our critics refuse to completely air McCain’s stands on immigration, campaign finance, the environment, global warming, his refusal to interfere with his daughter’s hypothetical abortion, a grade of F by the Gun Owners of America, etc, etc. 

 

The reason these aren’t discussed at any length now?  Because he’s socialist-lite.  “Oh my gosh!  How can you say such a thing?” 

 

How can you keep avoiding such a record.

 

No, our critics ignore all that socialism and just keep saying “the war” “the war” “the war”.   How about the war on the American people, our economy, our culture and our constitution?  The underlying compromise that has brought us to this point is what is undermining our very country, has us one step closer to families being declared illegal, Christianity outlawed and the age of consent dropped to 5 years old.  We keep trying to tell everyone but they just don’t care.  No moral standing is as important as political calculation.  God please help us!

 

If the truth were being addressed openly, we would not be called the “suicide voters” we would be called “The Conservatives” and our critics would be called “The Compromise Vote.”

The GOP seems unable to understand that many in the base will no longer support them. 

They have tried to stave this off by insulting the base and characterizing us as petty, selfish and reckless. 

They've told us again and again of the conservative things they've done, but haven't address the liberal and anti-American things they've done. 

How conservative is it to force Americans to compete with illegal aliens for work?  According to the GOP there is no competition because illegals do the jobs that American's won't.  Well now I think that might be key to this.  Because illegals do the jobs that wealthy Americans won't do.  So are we being told that only the wealthy are Americans?

Why do wealthy Republicans respond to conservatives by calling us "racists"??

The plan to have illegal aliens flowing across the border serves what purpose?  So that wealthy Americans become some kind of freakish upper-class of the world?

Are the conspiracy wackos right?  Is this what the New World Order is all about?

The GOP must know it's un-American to do such things.  That's why they pretend it doesn't exist.  They get angry when it's addressed, as John McCain did, scolding us and saying "Because I said so!", as if we were their questioning children. 

Republicans are actually angry at the MinuteMen and have called them vigilantes.

Who are the Republicans anyway?  Because I don't recognize them as friends, like-minded comrades or even similar-minded acquaintances.

I'd rather be called petty, selfish and reckless, than to sell my soul, sell out my countrymen or my principles in the presence of my children.

Now they are going to tell me I should vote for someone who's 100% conservative on one issue, but only 15% more conservative than Hillary.

Am I supposed to pull the lever with some fantasy image of Reagan, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson?

I'm through compromising and dealing with these who choose the liberal institution of compromise.

I feel I understand Samual Adams when he deliberately started the Revolution. 
 
The GOP can go pound sand!

Isn't it funny how no one has shown even the slightest interest in my blogs, but I and others like me have been tooting our cazoos over how the party has left us?  And now the Republican establishment is going to attempt to convince us to support their candidate, not by appealing to us with true conservative principles, but by further insulting us.

One irony is that we true conservatives were criticized for being one issue voters, foolish and selfish in our failure to come under the big tent, and now we're being told we are foolish and selfish for not being willing to vote for a Republican who's only conservative on one issue.

I have just one thing to say:

I TOLD YOU SO!