jump to navigation

Pew perspective on political party popularity June 9, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, Congress, conservative, Democrats, Hilary Clinton, liberalism, news, politics, polls, Republicans.
add a comment

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then the graph below speaks volumes about the need for the Republican Party to communicate to America a consistent vision. The graph shows a steep incline of favor towards the Democratic Party since after mid-2006 while a correlative decline is charted for the Republicans.

As the Pew Research poll doesn’t tell us why the image of the Democratic Party is more highly favored, but my guess is it has something to do with the hyper-propaganda of liberals about the Bush’s supposed lies about the war, how bad the war is going, the strong oil ties of Pres. Bush and VP Cheney, and a prolonged campaign battle of Senators Clinton and Obama. Of course, the Democrats fail to mention that most of them had available the same data that Bush had. Most voted for going to war in Iraq and against terrorism. Many Democrats also have ties to the oil or energy industries as well as other multi-national corporations. War is heck. Yet, our troops have accomplished many humanitarian works in Iraq. A few hours ago, Nightly News reported on the many Iraqis who are reporting weapon caches and claiming more peaceful conditions and improved confidence.

I think some additional reasons for the decline of approval of the Republican Party are the divisions evident among its members. In many states, republican leaders are promoting and passing laws contradictory to conservative ideology and values. Gay special rights, abortion, and other controversial issues. It seems religion is a problem issue for Republicans while the Democrats are fully identifying with religion. The problem is in what is meant by religion. The cultural war between liberals and conservatives is still being waged as much in church and synagogue as in politics. Liberals have secularized their theology just as liberal have done to social policy. As Jonah Goldberg pointed out in his book Liberal Fascism, American liberals shared the same political deals and policies as did Mussolini, Stalin, Lennon, Hitler, and their successors.

The new star of the Democratic Party is more liberal than third way Clinton.

Some good news for Republicans is the decline of approval of a Democrat led Congress. According to the Pew chart below, the disapproval rating of Congress was 38% before the Democrats gained control. Today, the percent of Americans who disapprove of Congress is 51% — that is a 12% increase in about one year.

It seems a significant majority of Americans respond to Congressional paternalism by holding their noses and saying Pew-ee. (That’s the opposite of Yee Hah in poll language).

Source: The Pew Research Center Survey Report.

Advertisements

Encroachment of liberal gay politics within Methodist Church May 16, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Bible, church, covenant, culture war, gay politics, law, liberalism, news, politics, religion, Ten Commandments, tolerance.
11 comments

On April 30, delegates to the United Methodist Church General Conference decided by a 501-417 vote to maintain the Church’s stance on homosexuality. As stated in Social Principles, the “United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.” The delegates also passed a resolution against homophobia and heterosexism, saying the church opposes “all forms of violence or discrimination based on gender, gender identity, sexual practice or sexual orientation.”

The bishops and delegates who voted to maintain the biblical position on homosexuality must be commended. Their actions evidence their faithful service to the interests of God and Christ more than special interest political agendas.

Nevertheless, the Lord Jesus must still be saddened by the display of so many who serve the spirit of modern politics rather than Him. Forty-five percent of conference delegates voted against maintaining the Church’s stance on homosexuality. Over 50% decided to compromise when they passed the resolution against discrimination of homosexual behavior. That part of the resolution against violence is more than necessary. So is a strong position against discrimination based on immutable characteristics like gender and race, but can the Church be politically correct and still serve Christ? If the Church opposes discrimination against sexual orientation and related practices, how can it justify calling sinners to repentance who adhere to sexually immoral views and practices? Can the Church work with sinners who practice immorality towards reconciliation with God if the Church cannot judge what is sinful and what is righteous? Can the Church expect to help sexually oriented sinners to achieve restoration when it can no longer know to what the immoral must be restored?

The same applies to society. Society cannot maintain state mandated public morality if it cannot discriminate against immoral and unacceptable behaviors by law. Restoration of people bound by sin and its bondage is not remotely possible unless their immoral and harmful behaviors can be discriminated against. If restoration is not society’s goal, why then does society sanction restorative health therapies and correctional institutions? Isn’t the goal of mental and medical health practices and medicine supposed to restore people to some normative criteria of health?

The covenantal law of God recorded in recorded is the Church’s normative criteria. Like the church universal, the United Methodist Church is accountable to its Lord by a legally binding blood covenant. The collective body represents Jesus as an ambassador to the world. Members of the church represent Jesus Christ not American or global politics. They are by moral and spiritual law servants of the Kingdom of God over which the Lord Jesus presides. As servant bound by oath to a written and legal covenant, the Church is obligation to serve the Lord’s interests.

Without doubt, Methodist bishops and other leaders are under considerable pressure to cave into gay power politics. Gays and their internal advocates are persistent and fierce in their efforts to force acceptance of their idolatrous views and behaviors under the guise of liberal religious ideology. This was demonstrated by their media attracting protests on April 30 at the Conference as well as at previous conferences.

Earlier in the week, young gays proclaimed they would eventually prevail. One of their leaders said, “Anti-gay policies of The United Methodist Church are wrong and sinful in the sight of God” and in the act of witnessing “we reject the lie that homosexuality is a sin and that by standing, we affirm that sexuality is a good gift of God.”

What should be of great concern to all Christians is the fact that this female seminarian aspires to leadership within the Church. She represents the possible future of the Church—the kind of church Jesus rebuked in Revelation chapters two and three. Common to the churches at Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira was sexual immorality. At those churches, many at those churches were following the teaching and practice of the Nicolaitans and Jezebel, who may have been one of their leaders. Jesus said he hates their immoral deeds. He hates the teaching that legitimates their sexual immorality. He hates tolerance of it. He hates the practice of it, which is the reason He called on all of them to repentance. In chapter 2 and verse 16, Jesus threatens to come and war against them with the sword of his mouth. Jesus also expects the same from His followers. When it came the leader Jezebel, Jesus was not very loving. He promises death to her sex partners, death to her children, and a slow diseased end for her who caused many His servants to sin as well. Why was Jesus so harsh? She did not want to repent. Because He is the same yesterday, today and forever, Jesus has not changed his position. (more…)

Approaching Passover A Good Time To Come Clean, Part II April 18, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in covenant, Exodus, freedom, God, Israel, Jews, Judaism, justice, law, liberalism, morality, news, Passover, peace, politics, redemption, slavery, United Nations, United States.
1 comment so far

PART TWO

As mentioned at the end my last post, the freedom represented in Passover has benefited humanity as the model of divine justice experienced by many in their struggle and ultimate victory over the degradation of immorality, poverty, and oppressive subjugation. Passover has given many people the hope of liberty through just law, material abundance, and moral self-determination by means of a restored relationship to God. It is because of this light of hope given to the world by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that the land covenanted to the Jews be restored to them. It is an everlasting possession deeded to the Jews by the Creator of all lands. It belongs to them as a perpetual covenant. As long as they remain faithful to God and his law, they are going to be fully and completely restored to all of it.

The Palestinians do deserve to live a self-determined life. Why has Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other large landed Arab nations refused to partition some of their land to give those people who are mostly of Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian descent, a state of their own? (more…)

Passover A Good Time To Come Clean About God, His People, and His Land April 17, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in covenant, Exodus, freedom, God, Jews, Judaism, justice, law, liberalism, news, Passover, peace, politics, redemption, slavery, Torah, United Nations, United States.
add a comment

PART ONE

Jewish Passover (Pesach) will be celebrated on 20 April. As this day approaches, Jews and non-Jews alike should remember that this day represents freedom, Jewish continuity, and the potential for a just and peaceful world.

How can these sublime ideals be fully realized when Israel’s leaders adhere to subversive views and pursue destructive actions against their own citizens. Prime Minister Olmert’s policy of passive restraint permitted the destruction of Sderot and many Israeli lives. His unilateral policy traumatized 8,000 citizens living in Gaza by making them homeless and 200,000 more in the West Bank are threaten with same. The Palestinian response was to elect Hamas to rule over them and to continue bombing Israeli cities. Liberal Judges like Barak not only permitted PM Olmert’s actions but he has supposed other laws that endanger Jewish lives and would further the stated goal of distinctive Jewish state. Barak also opposes a distinctive Jewish state. In my post Is Israel a Democracy, I provided evidence clearly showing that the goal approved by the United Nations for the establishment of Israel was not to create a secular state but a Jewish state. Why then are these leaders so willing to endanger their own people as well as disestablish the Jewish state? In addition to ideological reasons, the power of millions of U.S. dollars is sufficient to inspire conformity to the goals of the American government. All the United States government has to do is withhold $10 or $20 million in loans to make Israeli leaders bow.

But subservience to the power and pressure of the United States is not freedom. (more…)

Is Israel Really a Democracy? Secular or Jewish April 7, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Declaration of Independence, democracy, Freedom of Religion, Israel, Jews, law, liberalism, Muslims, news, Palestinians, politics, religion, secularism, Torah.
2 comments

Shulamit Aloni is one Israel’s leading liberals. In a November 2007 Ha’aretz article, Aloni wrote,

“The government of Israel, with all due respect, does not represent the Jewish people but rather the citizens of the state of Israel who elected it. Israel is a sovereign state, which is still considered to be a democracy. In other words, it is a state for all of its citizens. Therefore, it must not demand of the Palestinians to recognize it as a Jewish state….”

Later in the article, Aloni says, “The state of Israel was established as a civilian state, as a state of law, and not as a state of Halakha….” Here he is specifically defending the presumed right of Palestinians to adhere to their religion as first class citizens irregardless of Jewish law. He later makes a similar argument for secular citizens like himself. Then, after criticizing the religious Jews, he makes a revealing statement about the rights under Israeli law:

“In the document establishing the state, it was promised that there would be “complete equality of rights for all its citizens regardless of origin, race, or gender.”

Notice, the document referred to by Aloni is Israel’s Declaration of Independence. His statement implies that no such religious right even exists except on his own authority. Could it be that a state founded for the Jews was meant for a Jewish people? (more…)

Freedom First Simulcasts Church-State Separation Event: Hollywood Celebrities Reveal It’s Fiction March 25, 2008

Posted by Daniel Downs in Constitution, Freedom of Religion, honesty, law, liberalism, lies, media, news, political campaigns, politics, secularism, Separation of Church and State, socialism.
add a comment

Actors, musicians and comedians will join church-state community members across the country on Wednesday evening, March 26, 2008 to put church-state separation on the national agenda during the 2008 election season. (more…)

IPAS Most Liberal States in America December 14, 2007

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, children, civil rights, Constitution, discrimination, family, freedom, gay politics, health care, human rights, lawlessness, liberalism, marriage, morality, nature, news, parental rights, politics, religion, right to life, secularism, sex, youth.
26 comments

mapourrights.jpg

New Mexico is the most liberal state in America based mostly on their laws pertaining to homosexuality and abortion. Following New Mexico in the top 10 most liberal states are Washington, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Vermont, California, New Hampshire, District of Columbia, Oregon. (more…)