Thoughts on the Iowa Caucus

I was disappointed in my fellow Iowans. They talk a good game. They claim to believe in the Constitution, yet they vote for people like John McCain and Fred Thompson who spit on the Constitution when they voted for McCain/Feingold. They claim to believe that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental principle upon which our nation was built, yet they voted for McCain and Thompson, the former with an appalling and the later with a wishy washy record on this issue.

At my local caucus after the vote had taken place, I talked to men who did not know either of those mens record on the issues I mentioned. Many of those I talked to voted for Fred (he got 19 votes) because they disliked the Huck and distrusted John and Mitt. Out of 57 votes cast at my precinct Mitt got 1 vote.

Some of my good friends voted for Mike because "He loves Jesus". Mike got 21 votes and clearly it was a vote based on his "Christianity" over anything else. What they fail to realize is that he will be marginalized just as Pat Robertson was, just as Gary Bauer was, trying to choose a secular governmental leader solely on his religion will always fail because the office of the President is not the national preacher. I agree with Mike on most issues related to Christianity, but that does not qualify him to be President of the United States.

Ron Paul got 7 votes, and several of the people I spoke to told me they would have voted for him but they don't like his position on the war on terror. Many of the same people are unhappy with what is happening in the "war on terror" but claim that Ron Paul is too isolationist. So they voted for guys that are going to maintain the status quo, explain that in logical terms.

The Ghoul and John Insane got 4 and 3 votes respectively.

I could go on but what's the use? The people of Iowa failed. They did the same old thing, just like they did in 1988. A religious figure leaves the state the leader, and will be out of everything in 2 months. The tide will eventually sweep into place making Fred or John the next Republican nominee, a Bob Dull redo. So much for a change, look for 4 years of Demoncrat rule.

In the Fullness of Time

Galatian 4:4 "But, when the fullness of time was come God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
5 To redeem them that were under the law,"

It is the time of year when we remember the Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. As I shared in the devotional at our children's Sunday School program last week, this event occurred at the exact moment in history ordained by God the Father.

First, the fullness of time. In the Greek,

that which is (has been) filled

a) a ship inasmuch as it is filled (i.e. manned) with sailors, rowers, and soldiers

b) in the NT, the body of believers, as that which is filled with the presence, power, agency, riches of God and of Christ

2) that which fills or with which a thing is filled

a) of those things which a ship is filled, freight and merchandise, sailors, oarsmen, soldiers

b) completeness or fulness of time

3) fulness, abundance

4) a fulfilling, keeping


God put together all the pieces "as a ship fitted for passage" then he sent forth His Son.

What were those pieces?

We know that in Daniel 9, God promises that the Messiah would come 483 weeks/years after the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. That was 49 years or 7 weeks until the exiled Jews would return to Jerusalem plus the 434 week/years till the Messiah would come.

We also know that there were numerous other prophecies which had to be fulfilled in the birth of the Messiah. That he would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David. That He would be born in Bethlehem.

That he would be born of a woman, see Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:34, and Galatians 4:4.

All these things God caused to occur just as He fortold, so that at the one moment in time when all of the necessary prophecies were completed or prepared, as ship fit for passage, God sent His method of Redemption.

As you and your family celebrate the birth of the Savior of the World, remember that Christ came at precisely the time God intended for Him to come.

And a question, if the God of the Universe is capable of telling when and how His Son would come, what prophecies are yet to be fulfilled? What does the future hold?

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

I want to wish all of you a Merry Christmas. And may your future be filled with the hope of a Coming Savior.

A little test for my readers.

After you take the test let us know how you did.

I got 9 out of 12. I'll explain later.



Update:

Ok, I apologize for not telling all of you that the answers page was no possible to access without taking the second part of the survey.

I would never encourage anyone to lie, but I happen to know that if you answer the questions, put John Smith in the name line, JohnSmith@hotmail.com on the email line and ajdieioajf on the friend section it will pass you through to the answers.

The answers page has pop-ups with dates court cases and other info worth reading.

An update on Rudy Ghoulini and Stare Decisis

Thanks to my friend, and legal advisor, BriantheGreat for this update.

In the post I wrote on November the 7th, I tried to make the case that Rudy is talking about appointing strict constructionist judges because he believes that judges who are strict constructionists will not overturn Roe vs. Wade based on a legal principle called stare decisis.
Read the previous article for a much fuller explanation.

BriantheGreat told me about an interview by Cal Thomas of Rudy Giuliani in todays Des Moines Register.


And this is the money quote, I would say I told you so, but that's not polite. Just read it and see for yourself.

Of greatest interest to social conservatives is Giuliani’s pledge to nominate only “strict constructionists” to the federal courts. Why would a supporter of “choice” on abortion nominate judges likely to overturn Roe v. Wade? “My view of a strict constructionist or originalist judge who sticks with the plain meaning of the Constitution comes from my judicial philosophy. It’s not that I want one particular decision changed.” He added that originalists might have “different views on this” and that precedent might trump even a wrongly decided case like Roe. Or, he said, the justices could overturn it. He cited the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court agreed to consider as a fine example of strict constructionism and noted that Judge Laurence Silberman read “The Federalist Papers” and other writings and speeches at the time the Bill of Rights was written to see what the authors intended.


Let me highlight the relevant point, that precedent might trump even a wrongly decided case like Roe.

He's not hiding it, he's not trying to fool you, he's right in your face with it. I'm going to appoint judges who will not overturn Roe vs. Wade, even though it's bad law, because of stare decisis or using his word, precedent.

There it is plain as the nose on your face. What more can I say?

For JACIII

This is a picture of the combine I had when I was farming for myself.






I've always been one of those guys who does things a little different than most people.
I bought an adapter to run JD heads on a IH combine.