The YouTube Site has an excellent section that is organized and informative regarding the 2008 Presidential Election.  Each candidate has been given the opportunity to provide their own videos (averaging a few minutes each) that explain their stance on the following issues:

1. Education
2. Energy
3. Healthcare
4. Immigration
5. Iraq
6. The Economy

Additionally, each candidate provided a video that is a self-introduction.

I believe that this section of the YouTube site provides an excellent overview of each of the candidates to help the voter to prepare their vote for the coming Primary and General Elections.

To go to this section of the YouTube site, click on either of the graphics in this journal entry, or click on the following URL (if that does not work, try copying the URL and pasting it into a web browser's address field):

www.YouTube.com/YouChoose

Imagine with me for a moment... what if Congress (both the Senate and the House of Representatives) was an incorporated entity, publicly traded on Wall Street, and subject to all of the laws created to help guarantee an honest and profitable business?

They would be indicted for fiscal irresponsibility -- for perpetual losses on the Profit & Loss Statement, and for chronic increases of debt on the Balance Sheet.

They would be indicted for non-conformance to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) as it relates to the reporting and maintenance of the Social Security Fund.

They would be indicted for product and service misrepresentation (for promises and representations made not-in-good-faith).

They would be indicted for unethical business practices.

They would be indicted for insider trading, of sorts.

They would be indicted for assigning key roles to incompetent individuals (as in, the Peter Principle).

And that is just the beginning...

I know that Congress cannot be run exactly like a business, but there are so many principles, policies, and laws that govern business that could govern Congress and help it become a much better servant of "We the people."

If by any chance you are reading this AND you are in Congress, please accept my thanks for your service... and please accept my call to reform.  I am not ignorant of how hard that it might be to reform, but reform can begin to take place today, with one step at a time.

Let's ask "What if...," and then let's ask "Why not...," and finally, let's ask "Who will...?"  Since you are alreaady there, how about you?

I would love to help... give me a call.

Can a Christian Vote for a Mormon Presidential Candidate?

Former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney has thrown his proverbial hat into the ring of presidential candidates for the November 2008 election.  My reason for writing this article is not to evaluate him as a presidential contender per se, but to address the fact that he is a Mormon, and what that might mean to the Christian voter.

First, let me express the point that I do not believe that Mormons are Christians; their theology is a contradiction of the Christian faith.  While they portray themselves as "Christians" to society in general, they also believe that all "Christians" outside of Mormonism are heretics.  Having said that, when I ask the question: "Can Christians Vote for a Mormon Candidate?", I am making a clear distinction that voting for a Mormon is NOT the same as voting for a Christian.

Second, our presidential candidates are not seeking election to be the pastor of your church, nor to be the supreme prophet in a Theocratic nation.  He is seeking election to be the president of a secular country that has a semi-democratic form of government.

Third, is it theologically and morally okay to vote for a secularist (an unbelieving) presidential candidate, yet morally and theologically sinful to vote for a Mormon (a non-Christian) presidential candidate?

A few things come to my mind as I contemplate "who would Jesus vote for," or maybe more specifically: "who would Jesus NOT vote for?"

Scripture teaches us that all leaders of nations (both secular and otherwise) are placed in their seats of power and authority (see Romans 13:1-7) by God!  While that does not mean that God approves of their heart and motives, they are nonetheless placed in their position of power with the responsibility to lead in a manner that is in accord with God's will and God's ways.

While God provides clear litmus tests for who shall be considered for Church leadership (i.e. no secularists, but instead very holy-lifestyle Christians with a strong faith) He does not address how Christians should -- or should not -- vote in a secular form of a democratic government.  He does however command that we honor, respect, and pray for those who do land in the seats of power and authority.

So, here is a suggestion for when it comes time to vote:  Look carefully at the candidates, pray for God's wisdom, and to the best of your ability and conscience choose the one person that you believe would provide leadership that most closely matches the direction and the values that are consistent with what you know about God.

No, you won't have an exact match... the point is to vote for that candidate who is the closest to that ideal.

While I am still evaluating the presidential candidates (with more to likely enter the race in the coming months), I have not ruled out Mitt Romney simply because he is a Mormon.  If I choose someone else, it will not be on the basis of Romney's Mormon belief system... it will be on the basis of who will likely lead our nation with the integrity and the values that are closest to the ideals that I hold to be true to God's ways.

Someone might say that this sounds like you just vote for the lesser of the evils.  Well, if all you have for candidates are "evil" people, then yes, choose the lesser of the evils.  Thankfully though, I don't think all of our candidates are "evil."

The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (12 October) that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now. Whilst sitting on a terrace in Berlin, Broder pointed to the other customers and the passers-by and said melancholically: “We are watching the world of yesterday.”

Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself. “I am too old,” he said. However, he urged young people to get out and “move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable.”

Many Germans and Dutch, apparently, did not wait for Broder’s advice. The number of emigrants leaving the Netherlands and Germany has already surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. One does not have to be prophetic to predict, like Henryk Broder, that Europe is becoming Islamic.

Read more...

The Presidential race of 2008 is already underway, and it is having an impact at all levels of the political systems of our nation. It is causing tempers to flare and secret –isms of the heart to be made public for consideration by voters across the political spectrum.

Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware) recently made a positive (but perhaps revealing) statement about another presidential candidate, Senator Barrack Obama (D-Illinois). When asked what he thought about Senator Obama, he said that he is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean."

When asked about his comment, Biden said that he regretted the comments and that he hadn't meant to disparage other blacks who had run for president in the past, including Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the late New York Rep. Shirley Chisholm, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972.

So, is there an –ism to be detected in Biden’s comment? Perhaps, especially when you add this one to the long list of other things that he has said that seem to portray a certain –ism.

This week a high-ranking Hispanic party official, Alvaro Cifuentes resigned abruptly after having a heated argument with an African-American aide to the DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

Twice in the argument he called the aide “boy” and witnesses stepped in to calm the situation. They felt that Cifuentes' actions were physically intimidating, and that his remarks were racially insensitive. Cifuentes was the Chairman of the DNC’s Hispanic Caucus.

So, another temper has flared, and the Climate of Political Warming is, well, warmed even further.

The next 21 months are going to be very interesting as it relates to tempers and –isms being revealed!

Dear Friend:

The U.S. Senate is considering a bill that would infringe on your right to free speech by making it extremely difficult for Dr. Dobson and other pro-family leaders to keep you updated on what politicians in Washington, D.C., are doing.

The new Democrat majority introduced S.1 in an effort to clean up the recent lobbying scandals in Washington. Much of the bill is good, but it contains a provision – Section 220 – that would severely limit your ability to voice your opinions on the important issues facing our country.

If S.1 passes with these outrageous provisions, communications from Focus Action, known as “grassroots communications,” will be tied up in miles of new red tape. These bureaucratic restrictions are clearly a concerted effort to insulate legislators from criticism. At the same time, Section 220 will allow labor unions, trade associations and foreign corporations unregulated access to legislators.

The Senate leadership has fast-tracked this bill in an effort to keep you in the dark. It is crucial for you to voice your concern now, because if Section 220 remains intact, you could be left in the dark on pro-family issues from now on.

It is vital that you take this opportunity to express your outrage about Section 220. Focus Action has set up a special petition Web page. Please sign our petition to help protect your right to freedom of speech. We'll deliver your petition to your senators.

Thanks for standing up for our foundational freedoms.

Please consider viewing the petition page offered by Focus on the Family Action.

The Quran (also spelled Koran) is the ancient holy book of Islam which labels all non-Muslims (and with specific reference to Jews and Christians) as infidels. A segment [large enough to concern any reasonable person] of the Islamic community around the world believes that the Quran is deliberate and literal when it calls for the infidels to either convert or be killed. Thus the firestorm of late.

In a move that was strategic and was intended to calm the firestorm, the congressman arranged to borrow for his oath of office ceremony the copy of the Quran that was part of President Thomas Jefferson’s personal library. Surprisingly (at least to me) this did had a huge calming affect on the firestorm of this controversy. Somehow, the general public seems to now reason that if Jefferson owned a Quran, then how can we be fair in resisting [through public debate] someone else having one and using it in an oath of office ceremony?

I must join my voice with a few others in asking: Where is our discernment as a nation? When did we retire our ability to reason? Just because someone has a particular book in their library does not mean that they endorse it. While we all would agree with that, somehow this nugget of reason has been lost in the current firestorm.

There is a huge difference between owning a copy of a book, and of pledging allegiance to it. Jefferson simply owned a copy (perhaps for academic reference, or as a gift or souvenir), but the congressman is a Muslim – he has pledged allegiance to this book and all that the book commands (commands that he or his Muslim clerics might interpret in a manner that is contrary to our national traditions, our history, and/or our Constitution and all of its Amendments).

While this oath of office ceremony is now passed, let us not assume that he is guilty nor innocent of the aforementioned warnings. Let’s just keep this topic under public “surveillance” and revive our national discernment and capacity to reason without succumbing to the politically correct crowd that says the Quran in an oath of office ceremony doesn’t mean anything. It does, and it will.