Commentary: Why Liberals Love Illegals (Part Three)

A "Great" Example in South Carolina Election

Given 26-Jun-10; 12 minutes

description: (hide)

John Ritenbaugh, appraising illogical governmental decisions, attributes demonic influence. Because the leftist Democrat appeals to disgruntled minorities, and because they generally vote straight tickets, an unqualified African-American candidate garnered 60% of the vote for a senate seat. Embarrassed North Carolina Democrats tried to blame the snafu on Republican dirty tricks rather than the pitiful sheep instinct which guides most liberal decision making. Our forebears (I Samuel 8:19) proved just as stupid when they rejected God's counsel in favor of a flawed human king, sowing the wind, but reaping the whirlwind.



Two weeks ago, I commented on governmental decisions, seemingly almost illogical to our minds these days. To me, the overall answer lies in the pervasive influence of demons who are affecting people in high positions and influencing them to incredibly unbalanced decision-making processes and conclusions.

That commentary, in turn, followed one having to do with the political ploy that was used by liberals to weld together coalitions of block-voting minorities who consistently vote for their programs because they are convinced that the liberals are on their side. We had a vivid example of this take place in a democratic senatorial nomination primary, demonstrated before the eyes of news reporters spread all over the entire nation, when a virtually unknown, unemployed African American received 160,000+ votes and won the nomination in a veritable landslide, garnering 60%+ of the votes that were cast in South Carolina. The result was that this news hit the big time nationally. The victor was interviewed by very well-known name reporters in large cities a number of times. The Democratic Party officials in South Carolina are quite embarrassed, and at this point they are trying to blame the Republicans of some nefarious scheme.

Since he hasn't worked in quite a while, everybody is wondering where he got the money to register for people to vote for him in the first place. Securing a place on the ballot cost him a nominating fee of $10,000. "Where did that money come from?," is the question. A man who lost the election—a white ex-judge of some level of court, petitioned the Democratic Party to redress his loss, claiming that the voting machines did not function properly. He lost his appeal. The investigators said that their inspection showed no flaw in the machines.

The filing fee money is a huge issue all by itself. But when I am intrigued by is why did so many voters cast their vote for him when they had no idea what he stood for, because he never campaigned. He was merely a name on the Democratic ballot.

What we can see from this is a vivid example off why liberals consistently play this millets game. It produced exactly the kind of voting they desire, but this time to their national embarrassment. What we all saw was a clear example of the sheep instinct. There is a large measure of instructive understanding in numbers. I mean, statistical figures. This is why insurance companies use actuaries so extensively. And it's why political parties take endless polls. The political leaders are searching for direction as to where they stand at the moment in order to win in the end.

It was George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama who ran for President, who is credited with saying that there is not a dime's worth of difference between a Republican and a Democrat. What he said has to be understood within the context, and that is that when it comes to actually executing the force of law, there is no difference, because circumstances very often force one or the other to go in the same direction on any given governmental issue. What he did not say, that he left to the understanding of the hearers, is that philosophically, those Republican and Democrat have very many differences at the foundation of the they are thinking.

The liberals know from their experiences in many elections that the people that they attract have a very, very strong tendency to vote straight Democratic ticket. That is exactly what happened here in South Carolina. The people voting simply did not know anything about this man except that he was on the Democratic ticket and they voted blindly.

I have even heard (what I'm about to tell you) on news programs reporting voting trends. These pundits know from their experiences covering elections that people who are politically conservative, philosophically, are far less likely to vote the straight ticket than those with a liberal philosophic bent. Those of an independent bent are less likely than either of those two to do so. This is because the people with these mindsets reach a conclusion based on their perspective and, of course, past practice.

When I say that nobody new Mr. Green, I mean it. None of the Democratic Party officials knew him personally or knew anything about him. He was just a name on the ballot, and he won, and they apparently could find nothing that allowed his win to be taken from him. He was clearly elected by those ignorant of any knowledge whatever of his capabilities. He was elected on the basis of association with the political party, and the thoughtless, sheep-instinct of those who voted for him.

How many millions of times has this sort of mindless voting been repeated in the history of this nation, or any other nation, for that matter? It reminds me of I Samuel 8:4-10, 19-22. I want to read these things to you:

I Samuel 8:4-10 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” [That's the key, right there.] But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel [not knowing the answer] prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.” So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king.

I Samuel 8:19-22 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the LORD. So the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.” And Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Every man go to his city.”

Unlike the people who voted for Mr. Green, the Israelites were warned even before they made this decision off what they and their descendants after them were going to bring upon themselves. And still they voted blindly because they really did not think it through, and they rejected the very word of God. So, they sowed the wind and they reaped the whirlwind. Some things never change when people are so hardheaded that they reject even when they are told the word of God.


The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

Sign up for The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. Join over 145,000 other subscribers.

We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.