Tim Kaine: Hypocrite of the Highest Order

In every possible policy position, Democrats are hypocrites. Why should the Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate be any better?

When asked about reconciling his Catholic faith with his stance on abortion, Vice Presidential candidate Tim Kaine claimed that he was, in fact, personally opposed to abortion due to his Catholic faith.  However, he asserted that he does not believe that his convictions ought to play a role in his jurisprudence.

The astounding idiocy of such a claim is simply stunning: if moral evaluation has no place in determining law, what does?  What is any law but a moral evaluation?  If he is so averse to religion-based law, would Kaine also argue that murder should not be outlawed because it is forbidden by Christianity?  Are laws against theft null and void because of the 8th commandment? 

But Kaine is certainly willing to draw upon his faith for his approach to the poor; he thinks government should be used as an instrument to eradicate poverty due to his “Christian” beliefs.  Apparently Kaine is not familiar with Mark 14:7: “The poor you will always have with you,” accepting the alleviation of poverty rather than the salvation of souls as the central theme of the Bible—a common Jesuit fallacy (Kaine himself a product of Jesuit education). 

So from where exactly does Kaine believe the law is derived?  Does God’s law have no place in our body politic?  Is there no law higher than the decree of whatever regime is in currently in power?  Does there exist an enduring, transcendent moral order, from which all temporal law is derived, or is the law mere convention?

Kaine may not be able to answer these questions, but the men who founded this nation did so emphatically.  The American Founders, unequivocally yet without precedent, believed they were acting in accord with a higher moral order.  The American Revolution itself was, in fact, an act of obedience to that order.  The Declaration acknowledges this obedience: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.” 

The “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” therefore take precedence over any decrees from an elected official, and direct the very course of civilization.  All human action must be subject to this higher order, as this higher order calls government itself into being.  This very concept is clear in Scriptural passages like Galatians 2:21: “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

I can only wonder if Kaine would have been unwilling to act against slavery because metaphysical equality is a foundational Christian dogma.  Would Kaine have helped Hitler in his goal of exterminating the Jews because Christian morality has no place in law?  Perhaps if Kaine read Scripture a bit more carefully, he would have come across this passage: “But everyone who denies me here on earth, I will also deny before my Father in heaven” (Matthew 10:33). 

Let it be very clear: the law either sanctions one’s convictions, or it rejects them.  There is no middle ground.  There is no such thing as “neutrality.”  Religious beliefs ought to be held higher in higher regard than political beliefs, yet remain foundational to the pursuit of justice (justice being the good of the state in the view of Aristotle).  And if a man will not stand by his religion, his belief in the most fundamental questions of human life, will he stand by anything?  If he is not accountable to God, the highest being, can he truly be accountable to any mere human? Hence, the pivotal question: is a man unwilling to act on his deepest moral convictions truly fit to lead?



  1. Garrison, what a refreshing article. There has been a systematic attempt to remove God and unalienable rights from our county.. It was John Adams that said, “we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” What most people in our country fail to understand today is that our natural rights come from God (or nature if you choose) and to protect those rights we form governments. We are blessed, in this nation, to have a founding based on these principles; however, people are all too willing to believe that government provides us our rights. This is part and parcel with the loss of morality, faith, and our founding principles. The really unfortunate thing is if we ever completely loss these ideals (and I would argue that we are well on the way) it will be next to impossible to reclaim them.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Thank you for your comment and support. I absolutely agree with your sentiment. Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists referencing that “wall of separation” has been misconstrued in the most pernicious of ways. Tocqueville’s emphasis on religion as a foundational societal structure in America was no coincidence. Solzhenitsyn’s Templeton address says it simply: “men have forgotten God, that’s why all this has happened.” He attributes the major crimes of the 20th century to the human conscience deprived of its divine dimension. We must bear in mind Reagan’s somber warning: “if we forget we are a nation under God, we will be a nation gone under.”
    These great men saw the importance of religion. We must reaffirm this vital aspect of we are to save this country.
    Thank you for your support!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s