I've been told that I quote Reagan a tad too much. But I think many of the problems in our country today could better be dealt with if we were all quoting Reagan a good deal more. With that in mind, here are a few favorites:
"When you start talking about government as 'we' instead of 'they' you have been in office too long."
“Generosity is a reflection of what one does with his or her own resources and not what he or she advocates the government do with everyone’s money.”
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
"It is old-fashioned, even reactionary to remind people that free enterprise has done more to reduce poverty than all the government programs dreamed up by democrats."
"Someone has likened government to a baby. It is an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Another letter of support
October 18, 2009
Editor Lynden Tribune,
I've voted in a lot of elections over the course of my 90 plus years, and this year I hope to exercise this right again. On this ballot I will vote Bob Johnson for city council. No, he isn't a life-time resident of Lynden, but since when has that solely made one a good councilor? I'm much more interested in the candidate's views and ideas for our fine city. Bob Johnson has been straight-forward right from the beginning of this campaign this summer. He has not been afraid to let the citizens of Lynden know his views. Not only that, his experience and his voting record in a previously elected office indicate to me clearly what kind of councilor Lynden would get. He has worked hard since the summer to introduce himself to his city and is to be commended for that, also. Since getting to know Bob, I have learned he is a hard-working stewardly man who is certain to be a breath of fresh air for Lynden city council. Join me in voting for Bob Johnson.
Gerrit Terpsma
Lynden, WA
Editor Lynden Tribune,
I've voted in a lot of elections over the course of my 90 plus years, and this year I hope to exercise this right again. On this ballot I will vote Bob Johnson for city council. No, he isn't a life-time resident of Lynden, but since when has that solely made one a good councilor? I'm much more interested in the candidate's views and ideas for our fine city. Bob Johnson has been straight-forward right from the beginning of this campaign this summer. He has not been afraid to let the citizens of Lynden know his views. Not only that, his experience and his voting record in a previously elected office indicate to me clearly what kind of councilor Lynden would get. He has worked hard since the summer to introduce himself to his city and is to be commended for that, also. Since getting to know Bob, I have learned he is a hard-working stewardly man who is certain to be a breath of fresh air for Lynden city council. Join me in voting for Bob Johnson.
Gerrit Terpsma
Lynden, WA
Letter of Endorsement
A number of letters to the editor have been sent in to the Lynden Tribune, but thus far have not found a spot for publication. Here follows one of the letters that was sent in.
October 17, 2009
Editor Lynden Tribune
Dear Editor
I have known Bob Johnson and his wife Debbie for several years. Bob is personable, principled, and prudent. I am confident that Bob will scrutinize every spending decision from the perspective of his taxpaying neighbors. Bob has experience (both in business and in government) in successfully negotiating the best deals possible.Please join me in voting for Bob Johnson for Lynden City Council.
Shawn Van Dyken
Lynden, WA
October 17, 2009
Editor Lynden Tribune
Dear Editor
I have known Bob Johnson and his wife Debbie for several years. Bob is personable, principled, and prudent. I am confident that Bob will scrutinize every spending decision from the perspective of his taxpaying neighbors. Bob has experience (both in business and in government) in successfully negotiating the best deals possible.Please join me in voting for Bob Johnson for Lynden City Council.
Shawn Van Dyken
Lynden, WA
Friday, October 16, 2009
DEFEND MARRIAGE
On Referendum 71, choose to REJECT the creation of a form of gay marriage
This fall we are going to get another chance to address the issue of gay “marriage” via Referendum 71. The wording of the referendum is very confusing – if you want to protect the godly definition of marriage you must choose the “Reject” option on this ballot. What you will actually be rejecting is Senate Bill 5688, which effectively creates gay marriage, giving homosexuals all the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage, except the name. A friend of mine, Jon Dykstra, has given me permission to post an article he wrote on the best way to argue against gay marriage. To often we argue for the traditional definition of marriage, rather than God’s definition of marriage. As Jon shows that is both a error in appreciation – God did great work in designing man and woman and the joining of the two in marriage, so we should give Him His due glory – and also an error in tactics.
Four Stupid Arguments Against
GAY MARRIAGE
…and one good one!
by Jon Dykstra
When a Christian politician asked me to write a brochure defending traditional Marriage I thought it would be an easy task – something I could complete in a couple of hours.
Three weeks later I still wasn’t finished.
The problem was every time I found a good argument defending traditional Marriage I discovered that a gay marriage advocate had come up with an even better rebuttal. My favorite Christian columnists weren’t doing any better. They were fixated on a mere handful of arguments, all of which initially seemed convincing, but ultimately none of them measured up. For example:
“Marriage has been this way for thousands of years, so why change it now?”
Slavery was also in vogue for millennia; does that mean it was right? In fact, slavery is still a firmly entrenched “tradition” in some parts of the world and yet, despite this status, we know it is wrong. So tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t much of an argument.
“Gay marriage will undermine traditional Marriage”
This argument has some validity but our opponents have a pretty compelling response to it; they accuse us of hypocrisy, and this attack hits close to home.
If we really cared about traditional Marriage – the whole life-long commitment thing – then why didn’t we speak up when the government instituted no-fault divorce? Or when they started encouraging common-law “marriage” by giving these no-commitment couples most of the financial benefits of Marriage? We sure didn’t react then with the same fervor we’re exhibiting now, fighting gay marriage. Why is that? Will same-sex marriage ever undermine the institution as much as no-fault divorce already has?
“The courts are forcing gay marriage on us – our legislators are supposed to write our laws, not judges!”
Yes, our lawmakers are supposed to write our laws, but that’s not really the issue here. Are we worried about who makes the changes or about what is being changed? Will we be satisfied when state legislators or maybe the US Congress, rather than judges, redefine the institution? No? Then this objection is nothing more than a “Red Herring” – a side issue brought in to confuse things. Let’s get back to debating the real issue please!
“Most Americans are against changing Marriage”
This is another shortsighted argument – a clear example of building a house on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:24-27). Perhaps most Americans are against gay marriage right now but what about in a few years? Besides, as Christians we know that just because most people think a certain way, that doesn’t mean that way is right. Or as my mother used to say, “If all the other boys jumped off a bridge, would you too?” Instead of focusing on what’s popular, we need to start talking about what’s right.
One good argument
It turns out there is only one good argument against gay marriage: Since God created the institution of Marriage, He gets to decide what it is, and what it isn’t.
Admittedly atheists and agnostics may not like this argument, and even some Christians might find it unattractive, but it has one thing going for it that none of the other arguments do – it is True. By building our argument on God’s sure foundation – by being unapologetically Christian – we can contrast godly Marriage with the poor, sickly imitation the world is proposing. We can show them that if Marriage isn’t built on a godly foundation, it has no foundation at all.
A different foundation?
The world thinks they can replace God’s standard for Marriage with a new, improved standard. God’s version of Marriage is too exclusive, even too bigoted – marriage shouldn’t be discriminatory, we are told. When Canada was having this debate their Justice Minster, a Martin Cauchon, made that point when he argued for gay marriage saying, “There was a time in Canada, not that long ago, when it was perfectly acceptable that women could not vote.” In other words, since it was wrong to discriminate against women it must therefore be wrong to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexual orientation.
But where does this new standard – that discrimination is always wrong – take us? Yes, gays will be allowed to marry, but this new standard justifies more than just gay marriage. After all, if two men can marry, why not three?
Some say this is a ridiculous thought, but what about the poor bisexual? Aren’t we discriminating against her on the basis of her sexual orientation when we require her to marry only one gender or the other?
And what of homosexual couples who want to have children? These couples, by necessity, require a third individual to propagate. For example, in New York, lesbian Beth Niernberg1 lives with two gay men who have both had a son by her. The three of them co-parent the boys, and the trio have an agreement in place that should Ms. Niernberg find a suitable woman the group will become a quartet.
Suddenly we’ve entered the realm of polygamy and really, it only makes sense. If you reject God’s limits to Marriage then there’s no reason to have limits at all. After all, if two men can marry, why not three?
Or for that matter, why not one? In the Netherlands Jennifer Hoes2 decided to end her wait for the perfect man or woman, and instead married herself. And in France the government took a lesson from libertine Pierre Trudeau and decided, “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” Therefore they will now grant marital benefits to two heterosexual men who live together3. After all, is it really fair to discriminate against them just because they aren’t having sex?4 Of course not.
If God’s standard for Marriage is rejected then absolutely anything is possible.5
The way it was meant to be
The only anchor, the only firm foundation for Marriage is found in God’s design for the institution. His institution recognizes that men and women need each other, and that being male and female has real meaning beyond just our body parts. He knows that children need a mother and a father – parents who are committed to one another for life – so He hates divorce and adultery.
Over the last 30 years we’ve seen the damage done when we deviate from this standard. Instead of deviating further, isn’t it about time we did something to restore this institution to the way God meant it to be? It isn’t enough to be against gay marriage – it’s time we stood up for godly Marriage.
Endnotes
1 “The New Queer Family” by O’rya Hyde-Keller The Village Voice June 25, 2003
2 “Faith: Woman marries herself” by Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI March 12, 2003
3 “The Fall of France: What gay marriage does to marriage” by David Frum National Review Nov. 8, 1999
4 In France even the dead can get married. In February this year Christelle Demichel married her fiancée, Eric Demichel, who had died 17 months earlier (National Post Feb 23, 2004). In the Bible we are told that the marriage ends with death (Romans 7:1-2), and that there will be no marriage at the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-30).
5 More food for thought – two political parties in the Netherlands recently asked the government to outlaw bestiality after a man was caught violating a pony (WORLD March 27, 2004). But as one parliamentarian explained, the politicians weren’t worried about the inherent immorality of the act, but instead were concerned that the animal didn’t consent. Zoe Heller, writing in the National Post, (April 5, 2004) made the same point when she insisted that there was one clear reason why people would never be allowed to marry pigs – because “you could never reliably gain the pig’s consent.” This seems to be the secular world’s best argument against bestiality. But what Zoe Heller and the Dutch politicians forget is that humans have never felt the need to procure consent from animals. Does a horse give consent to its rider? Does a chicken consent to be killed and eaten? Of course not. So why would we then require that animals consent to marriage? Once again it is clear that if God’s standard for Marriage is rejected then absolutely anything is possible.
Editor@ReformedPerspective.ca
www.ReformedPerspective.ca
This fall we are going to get another chance to address the issue of gay “marriage” via Referendum 71. The wording of the referendum is very confusing – if you want to protect the godly definition of marriage you must choose the “Reject” option on this ballot. What you will actually be rejecting is Senate Bill 5688, which effectively creates gay marriage, giving homosexuals all the state-sanctioned benefits of marriage, except the name. A friend of mine, Jon Dykstra, has given me permission to post an article he wrote on the best way to argue against gay marriage. To often we argue for the traditional definition of marriage, rather than God’s definition of marriage. As Jon shows that is both a error in appreciation – God did great work in designing man and woman and the joining of the two in marriage, so we should give Him His due glory – and also an error in tactics.
Four Stupid Arguments Against
GAY MARRIAGE
…and one good one!
by Jon Dykstra
When a Christian politician asked me to write a brochure defending traditional Marriage I thought it would be an easy task – something I could complete in a couple of hours.
Three weeks later I still wasn’t finished.
The problem was every time I found a good argument defending traditional Marriage I discovered that a gay marriage advocate had come up with an even better rebuttal. My favorite Christian columnists weren’t doing any better. They were fixated on a mere handful of arguments, all of which initially seemed convincing, but ultimately none of them measured up. For example:
“Marriage has been this way for thousands of years, so why change it now?”
Slavery was also in vogue for millennia; does that mean it was right? In fact, slavery is still a firmly entrenched “tradition” in some parts of the world and yet, despite this status, we know it is wrong. So tradition for tradition’s sake isn’t much of an argument.
“Gay marriage will undermine traditional Marriage”
This argument has some validity but our opponents have a pretty compelling response to it; they accuse us of hypocrisy, and this attack hits close to home.
If we really cared about traditional Marriage – the whole life-long commitment thing – then why didn’t we speak up when the government instituted no-fault divorce? Or when they started encouraging common-law “marriage” by giving these no-commitment couples most of the financial benefits of Marriage? We sure didn’t react then with the same fervor we’re exhibiting now, fighting gay marriage. Why is that? Will same-sex marriage ever undermine the institution as much as no-fault divorce already has?
“The courts are forcing gay marriage on us – our legislators are supposed to write our laws, not judges!”
Yes, our lawmakers are supposed to write our laws, but that’s not really the issue here. Are we worried about who makes the changes or about what is being changed? Will we be satisfied when state legislators or maybe the US Congress, rather than judges, redefine the institution? No? Then this objection is nothing more than a “Red Herring” – a side issue brought in to confuse things. Let’s get back to debating the real issue please!
“Most Americans are against changing Marriage”
This is another shortsighted argument – a clear example of building a house on a foundation of sand (Matthew 7:24-27). Perhaps most Americans are against gay marriage right now but what about in a few years? Besides, as Christians we know that just because most people think a certain way, that doesn’t mean that way is right. Or as my mother used to say, “If all the other boys jumped off a bridge, would you too?” Instead of focusing on what’s popular, we need to start talking about what’s right.
One good argument
It turns out there is only one good argument against gay marriage: Since God created the institution of Marriage, He gets to decide what it is, and what it isn’t.
Admittedly atheists and agnostics may not like this argument, and even some Christians might find it unattractive, but it has one thing going for it that none of the other arguments do – it is True. By building our argument on God’s sure foundation – by being unapologetically Christian – we can contrast godly Marriage with the poor, sickly imitation the world is proposing. We can show them that if Marriage isn’t built on a godly foundation, it has no foundation at all.
A different foundation?
The world thinks they can replace God’s standard for Marriage with a new, improved standard. God’s version of Marriage is too exclusive, even too bigoted – marriage shouldn’t be discriminatory, we are told. When Canada was having this debate their Justice Minster, a Martin Cauchon, made that point when he argued for gay marriage saying, “There was a time in Canada, not that long ago, when it was perfectly acceptable that women could not vote.” In other words, since it was wrong to discriminate against women it must therefore be wrong to discriminate against gays on the basis of their sexual orientation.
But where does this new standard – that discrimination is always wrong – take us? Yes, gays will be allowed to marry, but this new standard justifies more than just gay marriage. After all, if two men can marry, why not three?
Some say this is a ridiculous thought, but what about the poor bisexual? Aren’t we discriminating against her on the basis of her sexual orientation when we require her to marry only one gender or the other?
And what of homosexual couples who want to have children? These couples, by necessity, require a third individual to propagate. For example, in New York, lesbian Beth Niernberg1 lives with two gay men who have both had a son by her. The three of them co-parent the boys, and the trio have an agreement in place that should Ms. Niernberg find a suitable woman the group will become a quartet.
Suddenly we’ve entered the realm of polygamy and really, it only makes sense. If you reject God’s limits to Marriage then there’s no reason to have limits at all. After all, if two men can marry, why not three?
Or for that matter, why not one? In the Netherlands Jennifer Hoes2 decided to end her wait for the perfect man or woman, and instead married herself. And in France the government took a lesson from libertine Pierre Trudeau and decided, “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” Therefore they will now grant marital benefits to two heterosexual men who live together3. After all, is it really fair to discriminate against them just because they aren’t having sex?4 Of course not.
If God’s standard for Marriage is rejected then absolutely anything is possible.5
The way it was meant to be
The only anchor, the only firm foundation for Marriage is found in God’s design for the institution. His institution recognizes that men and women need each other, and that being male and female has real meaning beyond just our body parts. He knows that children need a mother and a father – parents who are committed to one another for life – so He hates divorce and adultery.
Over the last 30 years we’ve seen the damage done when we deviate from this standard. Instead of deviating further, isn’t it about time we did something to restore this institution to the way God meant it to be? It isn’t enough to be against gay marriage – it’s time we stood up for godly Marriage.
Endnotes
1 “The New Queer Family” by O’rya Hyde-Keller The Village Voice June 25, 2003
2 “Faith: Woman marries herself” by Uwe Siemon-Netto UPI March 12, 2003
3 “The Fall of France: What gay marriage does to marriage” by David Frum National Review Nov. 8, 1999
4 In France even the dead can get married. In February this year Christelle Demichel married her fiancée, Eric Demichel, who had died 17 months earlier (National Post Feb 23, 2004). In the Bible we are told that the marriage ends with death (Romans 7:1-2), and that there will be no marriage at the resurrection (Matt. 22:23-30).
5 More food for thought – two political parties in the Netherlands recently asked the government to outlaw bestiality after a man was caught violating a pony (WORLD March 27, 2004). But as one parliamentarian explained, the politicians weren’t worried about the inherent immorality of the act, but instead were concerned that the animal didn’t consent. Zoe Heller, writing in the National Post, (April 5, 2004) made the same point when she insisted that there was one clear reason why people would never be allowed to marry pigs – because “you could never reliably gain the pig’s consent.” This seems to be the secular world’s best argument against bestiality. But what Zoe Heller and the Dutch politicians forget is that humans have never felt the need to procure consent from animals. Does a horse give consent to its rider? Does a chicken consent to be killed and eaten? Of course not. So why would we then require that animals consent to marriage? Once again it is clear that if God’s standard for Marriage is rejected then absolutely anything is possible.
Editor@ReformedPerspective.ca
www.ReformedPerspective.ca
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
5 Campaign Slogans That Didn't Quite Cut It
Crafting a good campaign slogan, capturing the essence of your campaign in just a few words, is more difficult than some might imagine. It involves batting around as many ideas as you can come up with and slowly narrowing them down to the final one, or in our case, the final two. We settled on: “Stewardship means….” And “I’ll do less for you.”
But for your enjoyment, here are a few that didn’t quite make the cut, some just because they didn’t seem quite as good, and others for fairly obvious reasons:
1) Get tight with Bob
I’m a friendly and frugal guy, so this one seemed, at first, like a good one. But upon reflection it was nixed. I think that was a good decision.
2) Vote Bob "Stew" Johnson
The kicker with this one was to let people know that “Stewardship is my middle name”
3) Bob isn’t Dutch… but he could be
4) Stewardship ain’t optional
…but apparently good grammar is.
5) Dear Taxpayer
I'LL BE YOUR BFF
- Bob
In the age of text-message this seemed like it might be a fun ad, but not a great overall campaign slogan
Friday, September 25, 2009
I Promise I'll Do Less For You!
Promises, promises…
Most politicians over-promise but under-deliver. You know the type – they come to your door telling you that they have a solution for your every woe. And even though their solutions are always costly they solemnly promise you they’ll do it all without raising your taxes.
I’m a different sort of politician, so I’m going to make you a different sort of promise.
I pledge I’ll do less for you.
What does that mean?
It means I recognize that the government’s ability to tax us – to demand our money from us – is a fearsome power that should only be used with the greatest of restraint. We need to use it less.
It means that when it’s suggested the city buy up empty warehouses and empty lots, using our tax dollars to get into the real estate business, I’m going to say, “No, we need to spend less.”
It means that when it’s suggested we raise taxes more than the rate of inflation, I’m going to say, “No, we need to get by on less.”
It means that if I’d been on council when it was first proposed the city buy Homestead and get into the business of running a recreation
center, I would have said, “No, we need to do less.”
The government simply isn’t the answer to every problem, and it certainly shouldn’t have its fingers in every pie. So instead of ever and always expanding, our government needs to do less, but do it better. That may be more obvious on the federal level, but it is just as true here in Lynden.
Most politicians over-promise but under-deliver. You know the type – they come to your door telling you that they have a solution for your every woe. And even though their solutions are always costly they solemnly promise you they’ll do it all without raising your taxes.
I’m a different sort of politician, so I’m going to make you a different sort of promise.
I pledge I’ll do less for you.
What does that mean?
It means I recognize that the government’s ability to tax us – to demand our money from us – is a fearsome power that should only be used with the greatest of restraint. We need to use it less.
It means that when it’s suggested the city buy up empty warehouses and empty lots, using our tax dollars to get into the real estate business, I’m going to say, “No, we need to spend less.”
It means that when it’s suggested we raise taxes more than the rate of inflation, I’m going to say, “No, we need to get by on less.”
It means that if I’d been on council when it was first proposed the city buy Homestead and get into the business of running a recreation
center, I would have said, “No, we need to do less.”
The government simply isn’t the answer to every problem, and it certainly shouldn’t have its fingers in every pie. So instead of ever and always expanding, our government needs to do less, but do it better. That may be more obvious on the federal level, but it is just as true here in Lynden.
Doing less, better
The government has an important but limited role, one of protection, not provision. So my priorities for council would be to focus on our primary tasks, keeping our city streets safe, in good repair, and dry!
The city can help business too, but perhaps the best way it can do that is by simply getting out of the way of business. Cities like Bellingham seem to want to do all they can to discourage businesses by bogging them down in regulations. If we cut the red tape – like we did when City Council eliminated the old 65,000-square-foot cap for businesses along the Guide Meridian – we can create an environment in which new businesses (and old!) will thrive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
