Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘national elections’

5 factors Christians should consider when casting their vote


By Jason Mattera, Op-ed contributor| Monday, August 01, 2022

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/5-factors-christians-should-consider-when-casting-their-vote.html/

Voters leave a polling station after casting their votes during the U.S. presidential election in Olmsted Falls, Ohio, November 8, 2016. | Reuters/Aaron Josefczyk

Politics can be a messy business.

From the varied special interests wielding influence behind the scenes to the undeniable fact that we’re often left with candidates who exhibit demonstrable character defects, the idea of voting our values as Christians can seem like a daunting enterprise.

This reality is one reason why the proverbial phrase “the lesser of two evils” has become a go-to expression each election cycle. It’s an acknowledgment that both political parties fall short of our biblical standards in some way — embodying worrying degrees of corruption, bad ideas, and problematic leadership.

But that phrase is also an acknowledgment that Christians shouldn’t just throw up their hands in surrender, even if our choices are less than ideal. As best we can, we should pursue the application of biblical principles to every area of life, which includes the domain of politics.

How, then, should Christians weigh upcoming elections as they assess who to support at the ballot box?

Thanks to the recent slate of excellent Supreme Court rulings, we at least have a practical blueprint to help inform us as we make our decision.

Here are five areas to sharpen our focus during election season.

Ally to the pro-life community

Protecting unborn life in the womb should be one of the primary motivating factors for any serious Christian. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization undid the horrors of Roe v. Wadeturning the abortion battle from the national to the state level.

Which politician, Christian or not, will be an ally to the pro-life community?

That’s the question we must ask.

The ones who are hostile to the pro-life community will make it obvious.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for instance, demanded that the feds shut down crisis pregnancy centers by force while her colleagues in the House blocked a congressional resolution to condemn the violence and vandalism directed at faith-based organizations in the aftermath of Dobbs.

Meanwhile, abortion fanatic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, D, ghoulishly vetoed millions of dollars from the budget that was allocated by the Michigan legislature to “encourage adoption and support pro-life pregnancy facilities.”

Like I said, they make it obvious.

Religious liberty

What good is religious liberty if you can’t exercise it in a public place? Not good at all, the Supreme Court concluded in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Coach Joe Kennedy, if you’ll recall, was canned by his employer, a public school district, for leading a voluntary prayer on the field after each game. The district ridiculously argued that this voluntary prayer, which players from both teams participated in, was a de facto establishment of religion by the school.

It was not.

It was an American citizen exercising his God-given right to praise his Creator free from government interference.

Which politician will rigorously protect the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty and free speech?

This question is all the more important to sort out after we witnessed megalomaniac governors and local officials exploit the coronavirus pandemic to shutter churches and limit attendance capacity for almost a year, even as they allowed abortion clinics and pot shops to remain open and accessible.

Put differently, will the politician be a friend or foe to the Church?

Lest you think such a query is too abstract, remember that Beto O’Rourke, who is currently running for governor in Texas, previously told a CNN townhall audience in 2019 that, if elected president, he would rescind the tax-exemption status of any Christian nonprofit that opposed same-sex marriage.

School choice

In Carson v. Makin, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Maine, if it is going to subsidize tuition costs for private schools, cannot freeze out faith-based schools from receiving funds as well.

“That is discrimination against religion,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Three of Roberts’s colleagues objected to the decision, which means three Supreme Court justices believed that Maine was justified in explicitly barring tax dollars from going toward religious instruction even as the State made tax dollars available to other private institutions.

“Discrimination” is the right word choice.

For voting purposes, any program or law — charters, vouchers, home school protections — that aids Christians in removing their children from the public school system is a win.

Government schools are not values-neutral venues for education. They are temples of worship for humanism, where a secular worldview is at the core of what is taught. If that agenda wasn’t evident already, the relentless reporting by Christopher Rufo exposing the radical gender ideology showcased in the classroom should leave no doubts.

Separation of powers

Civil government isn’t the only form of government, biblically speaking. It’s one form among many.

God also instituted self-government (Proverbs 16:32), family government (Genesis 2:23-24), and church government (1 Timothy 3:1-15), along with civil government (Romans 13:1-6).

And throughout Scripture He places different emphases and assigns different roles to each of these jurisdictions. Under this design, tyranny is averted because power is not centralized in any one form of government; it’s decentralized, or it should be anyway.

That’s the road to freedom. But that’s not how Washington, D.C., has functioned lately.

Americans have lost a great deal of their freedoms to unelected bureaucrats who populate the administrative state. No-name pencil pushers are imposing vast regulations on American society by decree, making a mockery of our Constitution’s commitment to “checks and balances.”

A seismic correction, however, could be in the works, thanks to the ruling in West Virginia v. EPA. Here the Supreme Court blocked the Environmental Protection Agency, and, by extension, other government agencies, from snatching power that was never delegated to them by Congress in the first place. As Neil Gorsuch underscored in a concurring opinion, any federal agency endeavoring to regulate “‘a significant portion of the American economy’” must be given an overt mandate by the legislative body. The same determination applies if an agency is trying to “require ‘billions of dollars in spending’ by private persons or entities,” the justice added.

It’ll now be more difficult for some Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fanboy you’ve never heard of to micromanage your life from the windowless office of his D.C. cubicle.

While defanging the administrative state may not be as flashy as the other Supreme Court opinions handed down this term, West Virginia v. EPA is nonetheless a crucial part in upholding the biblical precept of separation of powers. Christians should be suspicious of any politician who doesn’t respect these constitutional boundaries.

One last thing…

This next topic wasn’t addressed in the Supreme Court’s most recent docket, but it remains an indispensable part of how Christians should assess who to back for political office. And that topic surrounds this question: What kind of people will the candidate staff his administration with?

That question is critical because who an elected leader hires to implement his policies reflects that administration’s beliefs and priorities. It’s not a one-man operation, after all.

Which brings us to President Joe Biden.

He appointed a man pretending to be a woman to a key healthcare role at the White House. Admiral “Rachel” Levine, formerly known as Richard Levine, is the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services. During an MSNBC interview not too long ago, Mr. Levine said he remains dedicated to empowering “trans youth” to get “gender-affirmation treatment in their state,” which is the euphemistic way of saying he supports pumping adolescents full of puberty blockers and recommending “sex” reassignment surgery if these “youth” convey discontentment about their gender.

Any politician or party who defends mutilating children over feelings they’ll eventually grow out of has tilted the “evil” in “the lesser of two evils” balancing act unequivocally to one side of the electoral scale … which means that balancing act no longer exists.

The Biden administration has similarly made news by hiring a guy at the Department of Energy’s nuclear waste division who shows up to work in stilettos, a dress, lipstick, and goes by the pronoun “they.” The same dude reportedly brags about his bizarre sexual fetish that involves animal role-playing. It’s called “pup-play,” if you’re interested.

What this means in the context of voting is that we may not like the candidate at the top of the ticket and may even find his personality obnoxious, but that should not automatically be a dealbreaker.

If the candidate is going to hire personnel who champion the unborn, who respect religious liberty and Christian education, who seek to scale back the size and scope of civil government, and who aren’t trying to subvert the biological differences between men and women and castrate kids in the process, then these are all strong factors to consider before casting a ballot.

In other words: Personnel is policy.

Remember that when Election Day rolls around.


Originally published at Standing for Freedom Center. 

Jason Mattera is a New York Times bestselling author and Emmy-nominated journalist. Follow him on TwitterFacebook, or Instagram.

Immigrants turn Orange County blue in 4 decades


Reported by Michael F. Haverluck (OneNewsNow.com) | Thursday, January 3, 2019

CA immigration marchIn just 40 years, an immigration explosion has turned California’s Orange County – formerly a predominantly red Los Angeles urban sprawl area – into a new blue stronghold for Democratic candidates.

“The Democratic capture of four Republican-held congressional seats in Orange County in November – more than half the seven congressional seats Democrats won from Republicans in California – toppled what had long been a fortress of conservative Republicanism,” The New York Times reported in an article titled, “In Orange County, a Republican Fortress Turns Democratic.”  “The sweep stunned party leaders – among them Paul D. Ryan, the outgoing House speaker. Even Gavin Newsom, the Democratic governor-elect of California, won the county where Richard M. Nixon was born.”

Foreign makeover

The longtime conservative suburban haven no longer resembles what it looked like in decades past.

“To appreciate the vast cultural and political upheaval across Orange County over the last 40 years, look no further than Bolsa Avenue,” The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney and Robert Gebeloff explained. “The auto body shop, the tax preparer, a church, a food market, countless restaurants – all are marked by signs written in Vietnamese … or head seven miles west to Santa Ana, where Vietnamese makes way for Spanish along Calle Cuatro – a bustling enclave of stores and sidewalk stands serving an overwhelming Latino clientele.”

With California becoming a “sanctuary state” a year ago – not long after San Francisco became a “sanctuary city,” the embrace of Democratic pro-immigration policies by leftist politicians has made California into a safe haven for immigrants, who have taken over many communities in the previously conservative Southern California region.

“But the results [of November’s midterms] reflected what has been a nearly 40-year rise in the number of immigrants, nonwhite residents and college graduates that has transformed this iconic American suburb into a Democratic outpost, highlighted in a Times analysis of demographic data going back to 1980 – the year Ronald Reagan was elected president,” Nagourney and Gebeloff continued. “The ideological shift signaled by the most recent election results – on the heels of Hillary Clinton beating Donald J. Trump here in 2016 – is viewed by leaders in both parties as a warning sign for national Republicans, as suburban communities like this one loom as central battle grounds in the 2020 elections and beyond.”

Blue avalanche

The sharp demographic shift that has taken place in the county that is the home to Disneyland is the result of an immigration explosion that drastically changed the area – especially in the ‘80s and ‘90s.

“There was a steady decrease in white voters in the seven congressional districts that are in and around Orange County between 1980 and 2017, according to census data,” Breitbart News divulged. “In 1980, whites made up 75 percent of the population in the district … by 2017, that number dropped to 30 percent.”

And the number of immigrants in Orange County is expected to continue to grow with immigrants’ far-greater birth rates in the region.

“The county’s immigrant population grew five times as fast as the general population between 1980 and 2000, and while the pace of immigration has slowed, the Latino and Asian populations continues to increase – driven by the children of immigrant families born in the United States,” Breitbart’s John Binder noted.

It was pointed out by Marcia Godwin – a public administration professor at the University of La Verne in Los Angeles – that the registration advantage in Orange County once claimed by Republicans has considerably narrowed over the past few decades.

“You went from a solid Republican county to one in which Republicans were just barely the majority, and it fell pretty quickly in the past two years,” Godwin asserted. “You have had continued demographic changes. This is a county that went from majority-white to having a majority that are Latino and Asian-American. So, that has gone hand-in-hand – particularly with the rising Asian-American population – to voting more Democratic.”

Numbers at the polls are accurate indicators that Orange County is no longer the place it used to be, due to immigration.

“By every measure, this is a far different place than it was in the 1980s,” Nagourney and Gebeloff asserted. “The population of Orange County has grown from 1.9 million in 1980 to nearly 3.2 million in 2017; it is the third largest county in the nation’s most populous state.”

The flood of population increases for two ethnic groups has literally turned the political landscape in Orange County upside-down – as witnessed at the polls.

“In the 48th Congressional District – which voted out Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a fixture of Orange County Republican politics for nearly 30 years – the Latino population jumped to 145,585 in 2017 from 38,803 in 1980, or 8 percent, accounting for 21 percent of the district’s population,” the Times recounted. “In another corner of Orange County – where Representative Mimi Walters, a Republican, was upset by Katie Porter, her Democratic challenger – the Asian-American population jumped from 14,528 in 1980, or 4.4 percent, to 175,540 in 2017, making up just under a quarter of the total population.”

With the immigrant takeover in many Orange County communities, Democrats – such as Gil Cisneros, who stole a House seat formerly held by Ed Royce (R-Calif.) – are now winning handily at the polls.

“Because it’s becoming more diverse, it’s becoming more Democratic, because the Democratic Party is more inclusive,” Cisneros claimed, according to the Times. “This is no fluke at all. It’s been this way for a long time, and it’s going to continue to trend this way for a long time.”

America’s political landscape changing?

This trend is not only evidenced in Orange County, as it has been contended that there are now “two Americas.”

“Republican districts have far fewer immigrants,” Axios.com informed last year.

It is contended that immigration policy is mostly responsible for ethnic communities voting Democrat.

“House seats held by Republicans generally have significantly lower foreign-born populations than those held by Democrats – a likely indication of why the two parties are so far apart on immigration – especially in the lower chamber,” Axios’ Caitlin Owens and Chris Canipe explained at the time.

With Dreamers, amnesty and deportation being hotly debated last year, a large proportion of America’s ethnic minorities have put their trust in the Democratic Party’s open borders pro-immigration stance.

“The clock [was] ticking [last year] on protections for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, and Congress [was pressed to come up with] a solution,” Owens and Canipe stressed. “It’s obviously members’ job to reflect the interests of their constituents. [so] when the majority of a district’s voters don’t have any skin in the game, meeting in the middle can be tough.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: