I'll let someone else word this for me.

Ahhhh, election time.
Good, bad, ugly...it's our duty.
I don't like to endorse candidates as I admittedly do not do proper or adequate research to find out every detail of their lives that I may or may not agree with. However, I will vote as I believe it is my privilege to do so and I'm not really allowed to complain about anything if I don't even take the time to vote. The end result/outcome is not my responsibility. I'm called to respect and honor whomever God chooses to lead our country and trust that the future is 100% ordained already, with each of us having our own roles and responsibilities to play as a part of it.
With all of this said, I would like to copy a tid-bit of another blog. I feel Joel Rosenberg puts into simple words some of the complexity of the candidates. Not much depth, not a lot of mumbo-jumbo, just some main points that are important to think about when going to the polls.

Read more here:

The nation and world are watching.
Joel C. Rosenberg 
(Washington, D.C., January 3, 2012) -- What message will the voters of Iowa send the nation and the world tonight regarding the future of U.S. policy towards Israel and Iran? The stakes couldn't be higher.
There's a real possibility that Texas Congressman Ron Paul could win. But he would be a disaster as Commander-in-Chief. His comments just this past week have proven how oblivious he is on foreign policy. Of Iran, Paul said, "They don't threaten our national security." Paul said there's no evidence Iran wants to build a bomb, and even if they did they wouldn't use them. He said, "If I were an Iranian, I'd like to have a nuclear weapon, too." He views economic sanctions against Iran as "an act of war" and believes the sanctions should be removed. He said he would severely slash defense spending and bring all U.S. military forces home from the Middle East and Asia, despite mounting dangers from Iran and North Korea. Paul has made similarly outrageous statements in the past. He has said he would end all military aid to Israel and would not come to Israel's defense if Iran attacked. As I noted recently on the blog, Paul's foreign policy of appeasement, abandoning Israel, turning a blindeye to Radical Islam and gutting the U.S. military would represent a total surrender and invite aggression.
All of the other GOP candidates have countered Paul on his views, especially Speaker Gingrich and Rep. Bachmann. But none have been as principled and consistent in his support of Israel and his commitment to stop Iran as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. He was especially effective on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday. "Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said he would use air strikes against Iran unless the country dismantled its nuclear program or allowed inspectors to verify that the work isn't aimed at making a weapon," reported Bloomberg News. Santorum said he would make it clear to the leaders of Iran, "You either open up those facilities, you begin to dismantle them and make them available to inspectors, or we will degrade those facilities through air strikes. Iran will not get a nuclear weapon under my watch."
Santorum was the first candidate to put a substantive plan on the table to neutralize the Iran threat, and is committed to working closely with the State of Israel, rather than undermine Israel. He has made clear he doesn't want another war in the Middle East, but that we are running out of options and we can't blink now. If all other measures fail, then he will use force. He believes we must stop Iran from getting the Bomb no matter what. He remains the most resolute GOP presidential candidate in the field on supporting Israel and countering Iran, though Gov. Romney has, to his credit, spoken out more on the issue in recent months. On today's blog, I have posted an updated analysis of all the GOP contenders.
I'm not endorsing any candidate in this cycle. I don't believe that's the specific role God has given me at this stage in my life, and there are many issues of policy and character and experience voters need to consider in choosing a President, not just one's positions on Israel and Iran. That said, my readers know that I believe the Iran threat to U.S. and Israeli national security will be one of the top issues facing the U.S. in 2012 and beyond, and I have to be honest that I remain deeply concerned by the support Ron Paul is getting in Iowa -- and elsewhere in the country -- given Paul's policy of appeasement and weakness towards Iran.
Thus, I'm praying hard and watching closely at what message Iowans will send tonight to the nation and the world on these issues. Hope you will be, too.


No comments:

Post a Comment

jot a note!