Friday, February 24, 2012

Political Cage Fights Are NOT WHAT WE WANT!!! KNOCK IT OFF MEDIA!!!

The Lamestream Media is so transparent it's humorous. They're working very hard at creating a food fight among Republican candidates so that we can avoid a national discussion of the substantive issues of our times.

CNN is the absolute worst. Their moderators spend entire debates framing questions in ways that require candidates to attack each other rather than the issues themselves. I suspect CNN sees those as one in the same but they're not.

WISE UP MEDIA! What we NEED from you is to frame and present questions in ways that candidates have to explain(!) their positions, not defend them. What we want is to hear what each candidate's positions are on substantive issues presented to us clearly and directly. THEN LET US(!) decide which positions we favor. We DO NOT WANT YOU to create brawls on the stage such that the last guy standing is the winner.

Yes, we WANT to hear them each differentiate themselves from Obama so that we can decide FOR OURSELVES which one represents our interests the best relative to his administration. The more time the spend defending themselves, the less time the have to explain how they'd do better than Obama.

Somehow The Media has gotten it in their collective minds that they have to create an environment where debates become like a Survivor season. Or create a Roman gladiator kind of environment. These debates are becoming the political equivalent to cage fighting and we're sick of it.

We care more about the content of their policies than their ability to survive a cage fight on stage at these debates. Yeah, we do want a good fighter for a president but policies matter more. These debate cage fights are good theater to some but we want to know what these candidates think are the root of our problems and what they think will fix that. We're not getting that so KNOCK IT OFF!!! PLEASE!!!

Thursday, February 23, 2012

It's Okay For Muslims To Puposely Kill Christians And Destroy Their Churches But Burning Qurans Deserves Protests And Requires Accountability And Profuse Apology From Our President

We Americans do NOT have as an objective or policy to destroy or deface Qurans much less kill Muslims for simply being Muslims. As a matter of choice and fact we make a strong effort to show respect for Islam and what Muslims hold sacred. We even practice self-accountablility.

On the other hand, whole Islamic countries have it as their primary goal in life to destroy America, especially Christian Americans, and actually do so at every opportunity. Muslims destroy Christian churches and kill Christians for simply being Christians.

When an American does mess up and deface a Quran our own policies as well as Muslim demands result in profuse apologies and strong accountability. If many Muslims had their way our response would include the severist of penalties (inlucing death) for those who'd do such a thing. Such an offense requires of many Muslims to conduct angry protests demanding retribution.

On the other hand, when Muslims kill Americans and Christians we do nothing in retaliation and Muslims feel no obligation to apologize for it, much less hold the responsible people accountable in any way.

What's wrong with this picture?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Santorum's Comment About Obama's "Phony Theology": More True Than Not

So, here's Santorum's quote that's in the news this week about Obama adhering to an inaccurate theology: Obama adheres to "some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology."

There are two ways in which Obama's own actions and words prove that to be true.

One way is that the president spent a couple of decades attending a church in which the pastor advocated "black liberation theology" and the president was fully aware what that was all about. There are many who think that theology, to express it kindly, takes liberties with the Word of God. Overcoming "mal-distribution" of materials/resources is a good thing but achieving the desired "economic parity" by forced redistributive means preached in support and application of that theology is by no means what God had in mind. (And it has nothing(!) to do with the parable to which the president referred but more on that two paragraphs below.)

Of course we're obliged to take care of the poor and disadvantaged but that isn't meant to replace productive labor with an attitude of not needing to earn what one gets in life. In the Bible God values productive labors in order to take care of one's self and one's family. He encourages Christians to work hard, thus earning whatever it is they collect of material worth. Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus say everyone deserves "economic parity" regardless whether they earn it. Taking from others just because they have more is not biblical. And it has nothing to do with the parable in question.

The second consideration is associated with things that Obama says about Christianity. Wanting to sound all smart, he instead demonstrated a fundamental ignorance of biblical teachings that suggest his theology is inconsistent with the true meaning of things in the bible. The most recent example is his latest claim that his policy "as a Christian ... coincides with Jesus' teaching that 'for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.'" The bible verse he references, Luke 12:48, has nothing to do with taking from the rich to give to the poor. In fact, it has nothing to do with material matters at all.

It's a parable about whether one is a Christian who understands scripture and is therefore thereafter accountable to God for obeying His commands! It's a parable that refers to what's expected of Christians once they really understand what is required of Christians. MUCH MORE is required of them in teaching others about Christianity than of those who don't understand it yet. The point is, once Christians understand what God expects of them, they are accountable to behave accordingly ... choosing to live a moral life according to God's laws and to teach scripture to others accurately. It does not mean, now that you know the truth about being a Christian, you are obliged to be okay with the government forceably taking your material possessions and giving them to others. The lesson of the parable has nothing to do with sharing material wealth. It has everything to do with sharing God's eternal wealth.

What that parable meant therefore was this: For unto whom much KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING has been given (about the kingdom and what comprises a moral Christian life), much MORAL LIVING AS WELL AS SPIRITUAL TEACHING AND LEADING shall be required.

Note that the parable therefore was NOT talking about our moral responsibility regarding material wealth, the environment or anything else that's material in nature, rather about God's eternal wealth and our eternal souls. That President Obama does not understand what that parable was talking about discredits his pious and pretentious thinking and attitude. I apologize for being blunt but it's deserved ... this guy really needs to get over himself and get real with his Christianity if he's going to presume to preach gospel to us.

So, those are only two ways in which President Obama's theology is inconsistent with what the bible actually means. How 'Christian' does President Obama prove he is then by claiming a parable means something it does not and by pontificating to us that it is supposed to be applied in a way that was never meant by Jesus? For him to lecture us that we Christians aren't doing the Christian thing by not supporting his redistributive agenda is amazing to me. That he would basically chastise us as not being good Christians for not supporting or, worse, daring to challenge that agenda says much about how highly he regards himself. He presumes to understand something about the Word of God and then proves he completely doesn't understand it himself. His statement indeed, reflects accurately the "black liberation theology" of his religious mentor for all those years, Pastor Wright, in stark opposition to the point Jesus was actually making.

The section of scripture President Obama was referring to actually divided people into two groups ... those who understand what's required of Christians and those who don't. By failing to understand that parable, President Obama proves himself to be in the latter category of people Jesus was talking about who do not understand Jesus' commands and are, therefore, not accountable for falling short as Christians. Maybe he is a Christian but he has a lot to learn before he has sufficient cred or authority (per God's 'rules') to lecture the rest of us about what it means to be a Christian. All he accomplished by his misunderstanding of scripture is substantially validate what Santorum said.

Santorum's comment may sound harsh but President Obama's own words prove Santorum is more correct than not, eh?

By the way, Charles Krauthammer expressed it well too with additional relevant commentary:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gospel-according-to-obama/2012/02/09/gIQAngvW2Q_story.html

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Agenda And Supporting Spin Matter More Than Truth, Integrity, Principles, And The Constitution

To this administration, spin has become an art form. Just as in art, what they're doing doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people but something that's going on this week makes their "spin versus principle and honesty" instincts clear to everyone.

Penalties for not purchasing health care ARE TAXES!
The adminstration sent its Justice (HA!) Branch attack dogs to the Supreme Court this week to defend the ObamaCare penalties. Their argument to the justices: the penalites are taxes and therefore are constitutional because the executive and legislative branches have constitutional authority to levy taxes. In fact, however, this administration doesn't actually care whether they are taxes; it's strictly an argument of convenience and necessity not honesty.

AND(!) Penalites for not purchasing health care ARE NOT TAXES!
The administration also sent it's budget director to Capitol Hill the very same day(!) this week to defend ObamaCare. The budget director was asked by a congressional committee this week whether those penalties were taxes. He evaded and evaded and evaded but the congressmen persisted and insisted he answer the question. When he finally relented, he said, the penalties are not taxes. Why does this administration want Congress to believe the opposite (HUH?) of what they want the Supreme Court to believe? Because this administration knows that Americans, even their own supporters, are intolerant of tax increases on the middle class and that Congress would therefore be inclined to toss out some/much/all of ObamaCare if it raised taxes on the poor and middle class.

What do people possess in the way of principles when they argue before Congress one thing and at the same time(!) argue (as a matter of choice!) before the Supreme Court the exact(!) opposite? It's one thing for different entities on opposite sides of legislation to take opposing views. It's another thing altogether for the same entity to take totally opposite positions at the exact same time to different groups of people. What is that? Schizophrenia? A political kind of insanity? Or just agenda taking priority at all times, at all costs and over all things including reason and common sense?

Does this administration not understand that they've made a conscious decision(!) to lie? Either to Congress or to the Supreme Court? That places them in technical legal contempt of court or contempt of Congress because one claim must be untrue. This administration has no problem being dishonest to one of the three brances of our federal government. Which implies that they'd have no problem being dishonest to either one or, by extension, to The People. And what about being consistent with, much less submissive to the Constitution? Isn't it therefore fair to assume that, to this administration, agenda trumps the Constitution if they can find any possible way make it submissive to that agenda rather than the other way around? Maybe that defines progressivism.

It turns this into a plausible, sensible question: how are we to know when/whether they're lying to the American people if they have no problem choosing(!) to lie to Congress or the Supreme Court for purely agenda-driven purposes? If they're willing to consciously lie to one of the branches of government this way, doesn't it mean that, to these people, agenda trumps honesty, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution ... at ALL times? The Constitution thereby being something to bend to the will of one's agenda, ie to progressivism.

The CLEAR bottom line: What's hilarious if it weren't so incompetent, this adminstration doesn't know OR care whether the penalites are taxes and will argue it whichever way meets the approval of whomever they're speaking to at any one time. Truth, integrity, principle, and even the Constitution are irrelevant. All that matters is getting their current audience whomever it is to believe what they're saying at any given moment so that ObamaCare (or any other item on their agenda) survives. Protecting that trumps everything, period, no exceptions. If they'll purposely distort truth before Congress and/or the Supreme Court, how much more easily are they capable (and driven!) to do the same with us citizens? Are you okay with that? I'm not!

In Fact, it's not even a rhetorical question any more ... they played the same truth-distorting game with us on this already! Do you remember when they were trying to get Americans' buy-in on ObamaCare and they encountered resistance because those penalties looked like taxes to us at the time? Do you remember that they already said to us before that these are not taxes? Doesn't it bother you that they're now before the Supreme Court arguing that they are taxes? Their lawyers believe these are not taxes but they have no difficulty telling us they aren't!!! So it isn't even a question whether they'll play games with and distort truth to us. They have already done so!!! Do we care about honesty and integrity in our president? I do!

Monday, February 13, 2012

This White House Believes It's Own Lies And Nonsense Spinning

Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, made the rounds on Sunday talk shows to begin spinning President Obama's upcoming 2013 budget. Y'know that inconvenient constitutional requirement that led Obama to produce a budget last year that got no yes votes at all in the Democratic(!) Senate. I guess the White House figured that insufficient spin was the reason it wasn't passed last year when in fact it was due to outrageous spending that even Democrats couldn't swallow.

When asked why the senate, controlled by the president's own party, hasn't passed a budget in 1,019 days, Mr. Lew trotted out the standard spin line, "You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes." Only problem with that is a budget only needs a majority of 51 votes to pass in the Senate and they have enough Democrats there to pass it without a single Republican vote. By the way, Mr. Lew, President Obama couldn't create a budget last year that could get a single supporting vote from his own party so good luck with that spin thing.

President Obama and his administration are so sold out to spin and twisting truth that they seem to think that just because they think and/or say something it must be true because they thought it. If these guys aren't competent enough to get basic constitution-based requirements right, they're not competent to do something as complex as running the country.

It's interesting that the White House is sending out their spin doctors in advance(!) of the president's budget this year. I guess they think the reason it didn't get a single vote last year is because they didn't explain it well enough. Ms. Pelosi's rule for getting things passed, "we have to pass it so we can see what's in it", isn't going to work any more so they just need to spin it better to fix that problem. Two problems with that President Obama.

First, a fundamentally flawed (ie, far too expensive) budget won't pass regardless of spin. Second, you guys don't know what you're talking about. So stop talking and just do your stinking job. Better than you have for the previous three years please!

Sunday, February 12, 2012

The Syria Situation (Indeed, All Muslim History): Islam As A Religion Of Peace. Seriously, Really?

Here we go again. This time in Syria. Attrocities by a ruler against his own citizens, against fellow Muslims! Islam is a religion of peace? Really? Can anyone take that seriously any more?

Throughout most of the history of Islam, Muslims have fought wars against one another (in addition to warring against other cultures) and have perpetrated on other Muslims(!) the most awful attrocities and inhumane treatment. Religious warfare on steroids within(!) Islam. Class warfare on steroids within Islam (extreme poverty in oil-rich nations while the rulers live in unimaginable luxury). Average(!) citizens of many Muslim nations would love to live as well as most Americans live in what we call poverty here. Muslim rulers frequently (usually?) keep their country's population in ignorance. A religion that was once the pride of the world in scholarly endeavors has sunk to this. What a waste. How exactly does all this honor or bring honor to Islam?

With this(!) much violence against fellow Muslims coupled with their antagonism against non-Muslims, how can a rational person believe that Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace? If it were as fundamentally true as so many claim, such violence and attrocities against anyone, much less fellow Muslims, would be rare, would be routinely condemned, would be vigorously squashed. In fact, Islam (Muslims' behavior to one another) would be a model of peace to the non-Muslim world. How far are they from that? Yet they somehow expect Islam to be appealing to non-Muslims! And we non-Muslims, especially Americans, are the intolerant ones?

Friday, February 10, 2012

Pay Attention To President Obama's Progressive Instincts Because A President's Instincts Matter


Heed Obama's instincts because they'll matter far more if he's re-elected!

ALL Liberty Is Under Assault By This Progressive Agenda, Not Just Religious Liberty!

We didn't need this current issue of HHS forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptives and the morning after abortion pill to know about President Obama's progressive instincts. But it surely provides added clarity for those of you who still don't get it or what's at stake because of it.

Three years ago he and a Democratic congress rammed ObamaCare down our throats, going out of their way to ignore(!) pleas by Congressional Republicans to at least debate the legislation. By unilaterally forcing it on Americans they put us on notice that they ARE(!) determined to do whatever they want, arrogantly refusing(!) to debate important legislation and thereby patently refusing to compromise. That they dare to claim high ground on compromise and blame lack of it on Republicans demonstrates both their arrogance and commitment to implementing a progressive agenda no matter what. That action on one of the most important pieces of legislation in our country's history proves clearly what their basic and default instincts are: No compromise! In fact, take no prisoners ... no mercy!

So, here we go again this week with their affirmation(!) that ObamaCare requires religious institutions to provide the forementioned 'medical' coverage. That they could utter those words in total defiance of constitutional principles ought to alarm everyone. That they subsequently capitulated to an outcry and backed off that requirement isn't the important news.

They do not deserve credit for being magnanimous or fair by changing their minds. If they were those things they wouldn't have implemented or later affirmed the requirement in the first place. They didn't change their minds because they saw the error in requiring such a thing. What's important is their arrogance even daring to make it a requirement in the first place and then in the face of strong opposition reaffirming it! The possibility of losing the Catholic vote is what made them change their minds, not an understanding(!) how wrong they were in the first place. The important lesson for us is that it demonstrates their instincts favoring(!) unilateral force (Compromise? What's that?), progessive agenda trumps all considerations and ignoring constitutional principles and laws that stand in their way. Have they apologized for going too far? Heck no! What they're sorry about is not getting what they still(!) want.

Why this is so important:
Their instincts have mattered these past three years. They will matter even more should they get another four years to push their progressive agenda. If you think the arrogance of this administration has been excessive his first term, just wait to see what a second term will bring when he's not constrained by re-election worries! And if Democrats should gain control of the House and Senate you will see a progressive assault on liberty, free enterprise and constitutional principles and freedoms that you or our founders never imagined possible in Our Republic.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Headed For The Cliff, Pedal To The Metal! Too Many Americans Don't Understand How Serious This Is!

History has proved EVERY TIME that when more than half of a society's citizens are dependent on government handouts, it leads to ruin. Literal ruin. FELLOW CITIZENS, ALARMINGLY WE ARE AT THE THRESHHOLD! Here's the latest 'status' on this problem:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/08/dependence-on-government-at-all-time-high/

As if our increasing dependence on handouts and, therefore, increasing taxes on various segments of our society weren't already bad enough, something really, really bad happens when the percentage of dependents exceeds 50% of our population. Those who are already dependent and those who want government to do more for them begin more aggressively electing only representatives who promise even more free stuff.

Can't you do the math? What logically must happen when an increasingly unproductive majority of our population takes (demands) increasingly more in handouts from a shrinking and increasingly less productive minority?

Once that happens, the dependency cycle goes into warp drive, taking down our economy and all civility and freedom with it. We are headed for a societal train wreck if congress doesn't take this problem seriously now! RIGHT NOW!

Monday, February 6, 2012

Seriously President Obama, Please Put Some Effort Into Understanding What Leadership Is And Is Not

Here's an article that puts accurately into words/explanation what I've blogged all over the map about:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290203/out-touch-obama-michael-barone

Most people seem to think this kind of behavior is 'unpresidential' of him. For sure it's that in great degree but is too unspecific for me. To me, he's completely lacking in leadership skills. Divisive, aloof, no clue about team building much less teamwork, no clue about decision-making, no clue about how to do balanced budgets or why that and no debt are important.

It's sad for me to see this in a president. As I proudly(!) blogged on his inauguration day, "A genuinely momentus day in our history today as an African-American, Barack Obama, is sworn in as president! We pray for a new spirit of cooperation, mutual respect and responsibility throughout our country that focuses not on divisive attitudes but on resolving the problems we face with courage and resolve in God's good grace."

To say I'm disappointed is a huge understatement.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Geo-Political Considerations In Addition To Humanitarian Impacts Of The Upheaval In Syria ... Things You Really Need To Know

Tempting as it is to add commentary to the content of the following link, it's difficult to add value to the analysis therein. To know more about what's going on in Syria than you'll see/hear from mainstream media and to understand why it's so important for geo-political as well as the obvious humanitarian reasons, you ought to read this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290009/don-t-let-assad-win-charles-krauthammer

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Establishment Republicans STILL Don't Get The Message From The 2010 Elections But NON-Establishment Santorum Does

Andrew McCarthy put it precisely correct in his NRO piece today:
"Forget the fratricidal warfare between two establishment soldiers [Romney/Gingrich] so harmonious on substance that their contest, inevitably, has descended into a poisonous, personal food-fight. The problem is not the GOP infighting. The problem is the GOP [Establishment]. [Establishment] Republicans are simply not interested in limiting government or addressing our death spiral of spending."

That is pure, unadulterated TRUTH! They're nothing less than a progressive wing of the Republican party. Unfortunately it's a significantly large and powerful wing. But there is no doubt they've COMPLETELY(!) lost their collective minds vis a vis republicanism.

The behavior of "Establishment Republicans" is the EXACT reason why Democrats can legitimately call out the GOP on their UTTER FAILURE to control spending and debt during the Bush years. It makes MANY of us Republicans sick to death of the nonsense going on with/from/between Romney and Gingrich. If Obama wins his reelection it will be entirely because of the nonsense going on/from this spineless bunch of politicians who have the nerve to call themselves Republicans.

Romney has never been a big secret to us. I like that he 'looks' presidential. Unfortunately we need a Republican president who will operate like Republicans used to. He's a moderate Republican in much the same way McCain was. No wonder McCain endorsed him! That endorsement completely validates the extent to which Romney is a moderate of the same (losing!) ilk. Romney is also a capitalist of the kind we're fed up with too. (Yes, many of us Republicans don't like that any more than most liberals!) It didn't take Trump's endorsement of Romney today to convince us of Romney's dark side of capitalism nature but it adds certainty where uncertainty may have existed.

Gingrich's constitution support/knowledge bona fides gave us hope that someone among the Republican Establishment really does get it regarding our ==>> Republic <<== . However, we were nervous and now events of the past couple of weeks shot that notion completely full of holes. He 'feels' every bit as much an Establishment Republican in the bad sense (although different 'flavor') as Romney.

So now what? Santorum is the only candidate acting/talking like a genuine conservative. The interesting ... and HOPEFUL(!) ...  thing about him is that he hasn't changed who he is ... ever. True, one can find a couple of important issues where he initially took the wrong position but he's now clear about what those mistakes were and why they were mistakes. He's a person I trust to genuinely(!) learn from his mistakes. I don't have a problem with people making a few mistakes as long as they truly learn from them and their values/principles are consistently conservative. Santorum seems every inch such a person. He's very appealing to me and pretty much every true conservative.