By what logic are the fundamentalist LDS’s practices a result of atheism? They are a church. They believe in God, who, in their view, mandates polygyny – a view shared by the mainstream LDS a hundred years ago.

Curiously, polygyny being the norm in the OT, I don’t see it being condemned anywhere in the NT. It seems that the practice was simply abandoned as a result of cultural evolution. No wonder – there’s enough work in one woman.

Being Finnish, I quite like Dostoyevsky. That quote, though, seems to affirm Nietzsche’s view on Christian slave morality.

Cymatic, I am not denying the roots of the Constitution party nor its preamble. Pardon me for missing that and for clarifying that. Nevertheless, they have my vote in November.

To set the record straight, the CP has no agenda to set up any sort of draconian theocratic laws that would have been proposed by men like RJ Rushdoony and Greg Bahnsen. Sure, many people will have this preconceived notion that if they were to get into office, they would establish a theonomy/theocracy. Far from it. They are acknowledging where mankind gets their freedoms and liberties, and that denying this leads to tyranny. One does not have to look far to see what happened in places like all of those communist countries when they totally took God out of the picture. After all, it was Dostoyevsky who said something to the effect that “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” The TV show “Big Love” comes to mind, as well as bestiality, etc.

Now, if this will whet your appetite for things political, I read somewhere that Ron Paul plans to endorse Bob Barr for President. He even said that Chuck Baldwin is very, very close to his own views.

In closing, if we were only given the two choices of McCain and Obama, everyone would lose in the long run.

Yes, I think Barr would like to spoil it for McCain but I also think he genuinely wants to promote the Libertarian Party. He’s really disappointed with the Republicans. If he could spoil the election for McCain, that would give the Libertarian Party more visibility.

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

Helsinkian, I know that there are some people who shudder at the thought of having a pastor as POTUS – and some of them frequent this blogsite. They may be afraid that someone like Chuck Baldwin would institute a rule strictly according to the Bible.

Admittedly, there are some theocrats that would scare the living daylights out of a born-again Christian such as myself if they were to be elected. However, Baldwin is not one of those guys. Baldwin is looking to restore American back to her original and firm constitutional moorings. That’s why he belongs to the “Constitution Party,” not some “Christian” political party. That’s why he is looking to do such things as restoring full gun rights to every American citizen. That’s why he is looking to get our troops out of Iraq immediately if he were to become President (and I’m sure that some people in here would fully support that measure). He would also push to close the border to Mexico and deport those who are in the US illegally and have no desire to become citizens (which I fully support. There is a difference between deportation and xenophobia.) There are quite a few others out there, but that is just a sampling.

Be thankful that guys like R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Gary DeMar don’t hold public office. In Rushdoony’s case, he never will since he checked out in 2001. As for North and DeMar, they would never get my vote if they ran for public office. All of them are theocrats, and all of them want to make every part of the Bible the law of the land – and that includes the death penalty for homosexuality.

Second group of people are the “values voters” who vote against their economic interests. Republicans haven’t been able to deliver much to them and now it seems that the republican dominance is over. Do they still vote for a republican – McCain – or do they stay home?

In any case, I believe that this year is so bad for republicans that even “the maverick” can’t win the presidency with an R beside his name. And Bob Barr doesn’t help him at all.

Do you think that Barr is genuinely trying to spoil this election in favor of Obama?

Now, however, the problem is that there are no guarantees that the military is growing stronger. That is after all something most conservatives genuinely want to achieve both by taxing and by borrowing.

In comes John McCain as the number one guarantor of a strong military. He also promises to seriously cut back on spending and to get rid of the whole borrow and spend-attitude, back to balanced budgets.

This is where Bob Barr will play the most crucial role. His strategy is going to be to convince spending hawks that McCain, the military man that he is, actually is a big spender who will achieve nominal cutbacks in insignificant areas while actually increasing spending. Since McCain won’t be one to borrow, anti-McCain conservatives and libertarians are assuming he will tax.

Bob Barr and John McCain are both fiscal conservatives who are not happy with the Bush Administration’s fiscal policies. The big difference is in their attitude toward military spending. Barr will be running as an isolationist and McCain as an interventionist. The biggest difference of all between them is that Barr is running to spoil it for McCain, while McCain is genuinely running for office.

Nobody is actually running in order to continue the Bush fiscal policies. Where McCain is closest to Bush is in his Middle Eastern policy.

How about some borrow and spend conservatives!

BTW Jason, he’s running for president, not savior and I think most people realize this is a political race. I don’t know of any president who has proven to be savior yet and I don’t think any people really expect such perfection of their president. Presidents of the United States, such as those of other countries, tend to be flawed individuals. Obama and McCain look to me more aware of themselves being flawed and human than many of the previous aspirants to the highest office.

How about Baldwin? What is his goal? Spoiling it for McCain? It might be hard for him to achieve that as he is not as well known as Barr who is the one journalists will more likely point at if Obama wins. At least Baldwin, being a minister, has the superior religious credentials for the presidency. It’s just that being a minister with strong political opinions has never been as impopular as this election season.

Will there ever be an end to all of this “Carteresque malaise?” Sure, there will! Can we see it right now? Admittedly, no. Even Herbert Hoover said that the economic downturn that led to the Great Depression (which would be further aggravated in large part by his successor) would not last forever.

Let’s at least put that in perspective before making B.O. “the savior of the world,” and regretting it in the long run.

Abomination/Obamanation

Why would anyone in their right minds vote for someone whose first and last initials are B.O.? It literally stinks when you think about it.

Baraka was a cheap shot video game character in Mortal Kombat 2. Any relation?

Clintonian is Draconian

Barr None! He won’t win.

Nader’s Nadir (but what else should we expect?)

McCain’s still selling frozen French Fries in Canada. (Hey, at least he’s not an agent for oranges)

Baldwins because Chuck’s the man!!! (See Baldwin2008.com for more details).

I don’t know. Tell me.

Though we are not talking about the rule of LAW. We are talking about party rules.

“Better yet, when Clinton broke the rule of law, why was he ignored by the Dem’s?”

Maybe for the same reason as why David Vitter (R-LA) is still a sitting senator.

Right on, the rule of law is most important. So who do the Dem’s continue to gripe over the last 2 elections?

Better yet, when Clinton broke the rule of law, why was he ignored by the Dem’s?

Just 2 answers please.