Election 2006: Shame or Horror?

Posted by T on September 25, 2006

Distasteful as it is, we are approaching yet another election season.

At least, no one can plausibly suggest, “we just need a few more Republicans to get the job done.”

Since 2001, the Republicans have owned both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The Supreme Court is now 7/9 Republican appointees.

  • Row v Wade is still firmly ratified
  • Government spending is higher than ever
  • Yet another cabinet department has been created
  • That department, the Heimatsicherheitsdienst, is laying in place everything the Gulag was about, just waiting for the implementation.
  • Two wars have been waged that cannot be defended by Christian just war theory.
  • War has been declared against an abstraction (The War on Terror); war has not been declared when we actually go somewhere and kill people.
  • A citizen surveillance act has twice been passed, with the insulting “Patriot Act” given as its name.
  • The President has repeatedly told falsehoods about the grounds for his wars, lied about the extent of citizen surveillance, and thumbed his nose when questions about constitutionality are raised.
  • For the first time in American history, the use of torture is openly discussed and defended.

In short, we stand and watch in horror at what the Republicans are turning our country into.

To be fair, however, we need to recall the previous decade.

  • Row v Wade was still firmly ratified
  • A bunch of unpopular religionists were incinerated at their gathering place in Waco, Texas.
  • The President adulterously abused young girls in his administration
  • Then, he lied about it.
  • Miss Lewinsky’s War was waged, equally unjust as the Bush Wars, but even more shameful because waged against a Christian, European nation.

In short, we stood and watched with a sense of shame at what the Democrats were turning our country into.

That is our choice this November: Shame, or Horror.

You are not shirking your Christian duty if you opt out of having to make this choice.


22 Comments to Election 2006: Shame or Horror?

  • Interestingly, a friend of mine just pointed me to an article by Piper, Why Vote If You Are Disillusioned, which suggests we are shirking our Christian duty if we don’t vote. I must say I have to disagree with Piper. (The article can be found on his webpage of course.)

    I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Constitution party.

  • Yes, some good things and some bad things need to be said about the Constitution Party. However, we will need to do a bit more preparatory spade work before a critique would make sense.

  • Pattie – There may be something to be said for voting. Instead of checking the “R” or “D” robo-candidate one could write in “none of the above.” Though ineffective on a political level, it may give the voter an emotional bump. Something like sticking your tongue out at the fuzz driving off after issuing you a ticket for failing to “buckle-up.” (In Virginia there are actually billboards that read: “Click it or ticket.”)

    On the other hand, not voting is a stronger political statement. In essence the non-voter is saying the he rejects the system altogether; he rejects it to the degree that he won’t even legitimate the fraud by writing in a token protest candidate.

    Dictatorships like Stalinist Russia had huge turn outs. The communist cabal realized that having the people go through the motion of voting psychologically conditioned them to be even more subservient to their Masters.

    A free people who see the absurdity of a political system should freely choose opt out while they can.

    Our bumper stickers should not read:

    Don’t blame me, I voted for “none of the above.”

    But rather:

    Don’t blame me, my great great granddaddy voted for Jeff Davis.

  • I think that if you don’t vote at all, then they just chalk it up to, “They’re just homeless and uneducated and don’t realize their great opportunity in this country to vote.” And that results in people “getting out and helping” and car-pooling the homeless and uneducated people out to the polling places so that we get even more D votes.

    If you vote for someone other than the R or the D, then I think that sends a bigger message… especially if lots of people did it. Didn’t they used to get thousands of “Mickey Mouse” votes awhile ago that they actually publicized?

  • Getting back to my actual post, note that I did not urge people not to vote. I did not even urge them not to partake of one of the two platters served up to us by our rulers. My thesis was more modest: that one is not shirking duty to decline taking one of them.

  • “Don’t blame me, my great great granddaddy voted for Jeff Davis.”


    Most of the Constitution Party candidates are excellent choices. Some Libertarian Party candidates are good as well. There’s a Christian LP candidate running in my US Congress district who is head and shoulders above the Republican.

    Anybody can “not vote”, 40-60% of people don’t vote. It sends a tremendously louder message when, not only do you reject both R and D, but you go to the trouble to vote third party, to vote conscious.

  • Actually no war has been declared–technically. Ron Paul tried to get the House to declare war and they refused, delegating their responsibility to the Pres. I heard Pauls chief of staff speak today about that.

  • Interesting link posted by someone on Wilson’s site comparing the Parties as to war-mongering. Not that counting bodies tells the whole story. What about killing off a civilisation? In that respect, each Party has its own crown trophy — the Democrats’, dragging us into WW2; the Republicans’, Lincoln’s war of aggression. Since moderns of either party praise both their own party’s war crimes as well as those of the other, it is hard to say who should get the grand prize.

  • This is a comment on post #5 above, by M.

    It’s interesting that one would choose to protest the current political system by NOT voting, instead of trying to change it.

    Also, one cannot compare the still free democracy in America (free in a sense that the voting choice is still perceived as fair and that those elected actually do take office, legally) with the one of dictators such a Stalin.

    This defeatist position is what the current criminal politicians want, so in a sense one may argue that absenteeism advocates servitude to them, although not intentionally. So, VOTE!, and help get all these criminals out of office.

  • If one could change the political system by voting, it would make sense to vote. Politicians want people to think that they have a real voice, but it’s not so. The reality is, Tweedledee and Tweedledum are the two nominees. It is not worth my effort to go 1 mile and spend 20 minutes not voting for either of them. I can stay home and do that. As a wise older woman told me about 20 years ago, “no matter who wins, we lose.”

  • Obama, what you are advocating regarding the supposed free nature of our democracy used to be called mental illness. Just because one perceives himself to be superman and convinces himself he can fly, it does not make it so?

  • GV, ElizaF: Wow! I wonder if you two are French. Is there anything in life worth fighting for? Or do you always run since you already know you’ll be on the losing side no matter what?

    I wonder what you advocate in place of voting. Starting a war for real to oppose the current “worthless voting” system? If you did that, I doubt you would even fight your own war.

  • Scott:

    “Politicians should have to get a certain percentage of votes in order to be sworn in”

    Isn’t this already the criteria by which the winner is determined?

  • ‘bama: I only said I won’t vote for the current two candidates. If Ron Paul were a candidate I’d be happy to vote for him. If you think I’d fight for McCain or Obama you must be kidding.

  • Obama,

    I’m not sure what being French has do with my comment. I was simply entertained at your ability to argue for the freedom and legitimacy of our national elections based upon the premise that they are still perceived by the public to be free. I was pointing out that self-consciously basing one’s view of reality upon a delusion is not sound reasoning but actually symptomatic of mental illness. While there might exist some good arguments for voting in national elections, the mere public perception that they are legitimate is not one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *