The Thirst for Freedom

The following is a comment that I wrote on a friend’s blog including some of the reasons why I voted for John McCain and not a third party in this election:

I voted for John McCain today. Out of faith and appropriate fear. My father, who was a construction worker who walked around on beams in very high places, taught me that there was a very good place for fear in life! God gave us fear, but we are not to be ruled by it.

I am not ruled by fear. Unfortunately, there is a lot to be afraid of in Barack Obama and in the Socialist like Democratic Party. Barack Obama poses a significantly greater threat to our liberty than McCain in almost any area. Religious Liberty, Abortion, Economics.

McCain is not perfect. But I will not vote for a third party in a presidential election as long as the system remains where it is, unless both candidates represent the same threat to liberty. In this case, they do not.

I suspect that some third party pushers are actually a bit frustrated and desperate, and thus come up with the “Chuck Baldwin is the only…” type stuff.

Chuck Baldwin is not our only hope. Alan Keyes is not our only hope. Ron Paul (Republican) was never our only hope, but even Ron Paul holds to his third party ideals (he is still a member of the libertarian party) while working to take over and influence one of the major parties. Ron Paul is a free man above and beyond the regular parties, and he is also a carefully strategic voice within them.

Consider these articles by Gary DeMar, who makes great arguments that it is more strategic to try and take over a major party than to go with a third party, at least at this time in history and at this place in our system.

http://www.americanvision.org/blog/?p=185
http://www.americanvision.org/blog/?p=191

I urge everyone to consider not voting third party, but consider getting behind McCain, praying like crazy, and working hard to nominate different options in the next primaries.

(Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/clspecialalert/A000008329.cfm)

Is it Barack Obama’s place to be interfering with our government’s negotiations in Iraq while he is still only a candidate for President?

I don’t know. Maybe he should wait to see if he actually wins. What would be the consequence of each Senator or Congressman conducting their own negotiations in open disagreement with our Executive Branch? Yikes.

Read more about how Barack Obama may have done just that at the Washingtontimes.com:

At the same time the Bush administration was negotiating a still elusive agreement to keep the U.S. military in Iraq, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama tried to convince Iraqi leaders in private conversations that the president shouldn’t be allowed to enact the deal without congressional approval. [Read More]