WHATCHU TALKIN BOUT WILLIS?

I grew up when Diff'rent Strokes was a popular television show. That's no big deal unless your last name is Willis. To this day I still hear those famous words popularized by Arnold: "Whatchu talkin bout Willis?" Usually they are uttered by someone looking at me as though I may have never heard it before. Yeah, right! Well this blog is what I (Willis) am talkin bout...my thoughts, observations & opinions. Enjoy...



Monday, September 08, 2008

Can Two Walk Together Without Agreement?

by Chuck Baldwin
September 3, 2008

John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate was exactly what he needed to do to make himself competitive against Barack Obama in the November elections. (For the record, I predicted three weeks ago that Palin would be his choice.) As a result (and right on cue), conservatives throughout the country--especially Christian conservatives--are now fully supporting McCain's candidacy for President. Even James "I-will-never-vote-for-John-McCain" Dobson has endorsed McCain.

By all appearances, Governor Palin is a true conservative. She is pro-life. She is pro-Second Amendment. Alaska is one of only two states (Vermont is the other) that recognize the right of their citizens to carry handguns without a Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW) permit. She was rightly critical of the invasion of Iraq, once calling it a "war for oil." Speaking of oil, she believes we should drill for oil in Alaska and throughout the U.S., and is critical of the federal government for allowing America to become dependent upon foreign oil for our energy needs. She even heaped praises upon the Republican that Republicans love to hate: Ron Paul. Beyond that, Lynette Clark, the chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party (the party under which yours truly is on the Presidential ballot this year) reports that Sarah Palin was a member of the party back in the early 90s. This is very encouraging in that the AIP is a patriotic, states' rights party that holds strong sentiments opposing the New World Order propensities of the two major parties. In essence, Sarah Palin is everything that John McCain isn't. Which leads to the question that was asked long ago by the Hebrew prophet: "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"

When the no-compromise constitutionalist, Ron Paul, was asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if he would consider being John McCain's running mate, he said no. His reason for that was that should McCain do something fundamentally counter to his constitutional convictions--such as bombing Iran without a Declaration of War (or other possible unconstitutional actions that Paul knows McCain is predisposed to)--he would have to resign. Knowing this, he (Paul) could not in good conscience accept a McCain invitation to join his ticket (not that McCain would ever ask him to be his running mate; Ron was not even invited to participate in the Republican convention, for Pete's sake).

Herein lies the problem for Sarah Palin. How can a principled conservative support the policies and actions of an unprincipled globalist such as John McCain? As Vice President, Palin will be required to promote and defend McCain's big-government, liberal, and globalist plans. For example, what will she do when John McCain proposes amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, which he is certain to do? What will she do when McCain proposes to close gun shows, or at least the private sale of firearms at gun shows? What will she do when he proposes to increase federal spending for abortion providers (which he has done numerous times as senator)? What will she do when he promotes federal spending for embryonic stem cell research? What will she do when John McCain proliferates Bush's police state machinations by expanding the Patriot Act and similar legislation? What will Palin do when McCain decides to nuke Iran (and who knows what else), not only without a Declaration of War by Congress, but also without provocation or justification? What will she do as John McCain expands the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico? What will she do as McCain opens the door of the NAFTA superhighway and the North American Union? What will she do as John McCain allows the United Nations to dictate and manipulate America's foreign policy? Again, can two walk together except they be agreed?

Let's face it: John McCain is using Sarah Palin as inducement to trick conservatives into accepting his liberal, big-government, globalist candidacy. And, sadly, it is working.

As I have said before, today's national Christian leaders are among the most gullible people on the planet. They are so desperate to be invited to sit at the king's table that they will compromise practically any principle. But accepting John McCain was a not only a bitter pill, it was a BIG pill, one they could not get down without a major dose of syrup. And that is exactly what Governor Palin brings to the table: sweet syrup to help conservatives swallow John McCain.
Unfortunately, the things that make Palin so attractive (her conservative principles) are the things that she will be forced to surrender in order to be John McCain's running mate. The best thing that can happen to Sarah Palin is for John McCain to lose the November election. This would allow her to go into the 2012 elections as perhaps the Republican Presidential frontrunner. If McCain wins in November, and Palin is forced to serve at the pleasure of this globalist insider for four years, she will be forever ruined as a genuine constitutional conservative. Remember, "No man can serve two masters." One cannot be faithful to the Constitution and a constitutional apostate such as John McCain at the same time. That is an absolute impossibility.

What our conservative friends need to wake up to is the depth of duplicity and wickedness that permeates Washington politics (in both major parties) today. There is nothing that these globalist insiders at the Council on Foreign Relations (of which John McCain is a longtime member) will not do to fulfill their power-mad plans. There is nothing too evil, too sinister, or too iniquitous, including using, abusing, chewing up and then spitting out good people such as Sarah Palin. Even more unfortunate and sad is the fact that the James Dobsons of this world are too blind to see it.

4 comments:

William Mckinley Dyer said...

Even if McCain wins he wont run in 2012 b/c he will be too old. So could u imagine a ticket in 2012 being Palin vs. Hillary....lol awesome (sarcasm). We have no choice its over

Laura Wolf said...

I must respectfully, but adamantly disagree.

When it became clear that John McCain was going to be the Rep. party nominee I, too, was concerned. I had questions about his stands on certain moral issues. Since watching his interview with Rick Warren (I'm assuming you did as well.) and his choice in choosing a very conservative VP, l have felt better about backing him.

However, even if some of those issues weren't clarified, I still would have had a choice to make.

Obama or McCain, period.

As much as some people would like Ron Paul to be president and feel he is *perfect* for the job..he is NOT going to win. I think Tony Wolf would make a great president, but I am not going to waste a vote on him because he is NOT going to win. Not voting at all is not only incredibly irresponsible, but it is a vote for the *obviously WRONG* candidate! It is like these "christians" who choose to waste the time God has given them on pointless activities such as boycotting things and holding gatherings at people's funerals to show how God is against them. Those things accomplish one purpose and one purpose only...to turn people off to christianity. It is offensive to me, so imagine how it is viewed by the unbeliever.

We, as the American people, have a responsibility to our country right now, today. We have a choice to make. Saying that it would be better for McCain to lose and Obama to win just so Sarah Palin will have a chance in 2012 is beyond irresponsible. Let's give the completely wrong, immoral guy complete control of our country just so Sarah has a chance in a couple of years. Do you know the irreparable harm that could be done to our country during those four years?! Surely you did not mean what you wrote. I kept rereading it hoping I was taking your words out of context, but I believe that is what you meant.

You live in a key state...

Assuming you know what that means, no vote is like a vote in support for Obama. You have to choose. There will never be a perfect candidate. Remember that part where God says no man is perfect. You have to make the best choice. Voting for someone who is not going to win, and therefore taking valuable votes away from the *better* choice is a vote FOR Obama. Not voting at all is even worse. It is showing that you frankly don't care what happens to our country. Which again would be a vote for Obama.

I am surprised that a minister of the gospel would not only be trying to cause descention between his readers and some of our country's greatest (and most respected) religious leaders, but that you could be the cause of many in your church choosing to vote for Paul or worse, not vote at all. You have been put in a place of authority by God, and therefore need to watch your words very carefully.

Please spare me the sarcasm, start taking your responsibility as an American seriously and quit writing things that will turn non-believers off to christianity. Implying "it is over" is a quiter's verbage.

respectfully,
Laura Wolf...a Christ follower and a McCain supporter (in case you didn't catch that)

Laura Wolf said...

I'm not sure why my profile is not coming up...but just in case you have anything you want to talk about (;
...you can email me at lauralynnwolf@yahoo.com or visit my blog at lauralwolf.blogspot.com.

McCain/Palin 2008!

David H. Willis said...

Laura,

Welcome to WTBW? I'm glad you stopped in. We are free speech friendly around here even with dissenters. Tell Tony "hey" for me. You've also garnered an entire blog post in response to your comments.