The "god" of the Christian Nationalists isn't very bright. This "god" created a whole country that is "Christian" and he forgot to put the word "Christian" in any of the founding documents. Then this "god" also was rather unconcerned about that "separation of church and state" part and made that a cornerstone of Americas founding. Maybe "god" was sleeping that day and we all know what a trickster Ben Franklin was. Then there's slavery. A pretty big whoopse that this Christian Nationalist "god" let that go in it's foundation. LOTS of things were ignored by the Christian Nationalist "god" but now in order to fix those whoopses the American Christian Nationalists want to do God and everybody a favor and create a theocratic government. I guess Lindsey Graham could be the first "handmaid" if they go that route and create that "tale."
13 colonies belonging to the British Empire, whose king presided over an imperial church means that the original British citizens residing in those colonies were living under Christian rule. But they seemed to have not wanted it so they threw some tea in the water and broke away from any resemblance of any official religion. (but still provided protections for "religions". They even used muskets and bayonets to attack those British theocrats and called themselves "Patriots." (and, no, Mel Gibson was not there....and Debbie Gibson hadn't recorded her first album yet).
Betsy Ross' husband Gasden Ross created the "Dont Tread on Me Flag" cuz he just liked snakes and Betsy was busy making flags for friends in the colony. (some of this might be made up...but so is "Christian Nationalism.") In 1956 the US adopted "In God We Trust" as the US motto. In 1955 Eisenhower had approved it to be on US coins. I guess they were trying to fix all those hundred years plus of not remembering to trust God...since the Christian Nationalist "god" overlooked it back in 1776.
Now if you ask a David Barton-Like Christian Nationalist, he will tell you that some of the guys who signed the Declaration of Independence and wrote the Constitution were Christian and they outranked all the non-christians and deists because David Barton-like people wrote books about it...and if someone took the time to write about it in a book...how could it be wrong??? Especially if you add the words "God" and "Jesus" to it. I think they knew that the Christian Nationalist "god" left stuff out but they will tell you clearly that "god" revealed it to them. Christian nationalists like it when people "tell them stuff about God in US history" cuz it "fills in the blanks" for them.
And turns out that the Christian Nationalist "god" was waiting until 2016 to begin establishing His Christian theocracy because the Christian Nationalist "god" was just too busy for the last 250 years or so and decided he needed to seal the deal "he" started way back then and was looking for someone who was morally bankrupt, unrepentant, orange, threw ketchup, hung out with both of the Corinthians, and married a porn star. Hence "Donald Trump," or as he called himself, Barron. ("Barron" would call newspapers to brag about "this wonderful guy named Donald Trump. " "Barron" was so real to Donald Trump that he named one of his sons after his real "fake" personality. ) Christian Nationalism is a fake gospel which, historically, has only one goal: To get power. For more information read about Germany in the 1930s.
If Trump was not responsible for the attack on the Capitol then why did Graham, McCarthy & Rubio call Trump to call it off?
Ted Cruz, a juror in Trump's impeachment trial, said he advised Trump's lawyers and told them they'd 'already won' their case
McConnells excuse:.. Yeah, you're right that he's guilty of all these things, but because of the technicality that impeachment wasn't filed sooner (even tho I'm the one that delayed it until after the election), this impeachment isn't lawful
The Senate needed a majority vote to decide whether or not they could proceed Constitutionally with the impeachment since Trump was no longer President. A majority vote allowed it to go forward. THAT bound them....or should have to their vote. When the Senate votes on bills, if a person is in the minority of a vote...the bill still binds them. So the original vote took the Non-Constitutional issue out of play. SO, any Senator who claims they voted against the impeachment because of the Constitutional issue is a liar.....and abdicated themselves from Senate rules they were sworn in to abide by. I have ZERO respect for any GOP member who makes the "Constitution" the reason for their vote.😡😡😡 The House Democrats did a GREAT job on the case and it should have been a slam dunk. Trumps attorneys were horrible and as dishonorable as Rudy, Sidney and that other nutjob whose name escapes me right now. And Ted Cruz...dont get me started on him.....
The Democrats had a a debate last Sunday night in Charleston, South Carolina. Just after the Whitehouse thanked South Carolina GOP Governor Nikki Haley for offering such a great State of the Union response. Also in the state where the Senator (Lindsey Graham) couldn't even poll in the top percentage in his own state in his failed presidential run. Also in the city where the tragic shooting occurred at the church where the NAACP decided to further the agenda of the shooter Dylan Rooff. Rooff wanted to start a race war. The NAACP started the ball rolling by declaring a war on flags and white southern culture. And, of course, the Democrats LOVE that kind of racist action. Anyway, without offering a pledge to America or a tune...the debate began:
Martin O'Malley says that the Democratic side of the aisle actually believes in science.
Math, however...not so much
Hillary will be selling her husbands used cigars on E-Bay to fund her legal defense
Hillary says a handful of economists endorsed her plans.
Isn't that special?? Undisclosed endorsements that dont mean anything.
O'Malley slammed Clinton aboutt her "cozy relationship with Wall
Street"... He's the only one up there with any real convictions. As few
as that may be, anyway
Democrats don't use the word "Constitution" very much..if at all. It seems to be anathema to them
"The real issue is that congress is owned by big money" --Bernie, the
congressman who did nothing about it as long as he has been in Congress.
"Whenever anybody in this county is killed in police custody, it should automatically trigger" a DOJ investigation. -- Sanders
Shorter Sanders: Welcome to the United Police State of Sanders
"90 people a day die from gun violence in our country." -Hillary
And about 90% from cities run by Democrats and ruled by gun control.
1) Ted Cruz. Most of the more important part of the debate this week was between Cruz and Marco Rubio. Not sure about the "carpet bombing" strategy. I mean, what if it turns out they just have linoleum?
Dana Bash purposely asked a question that is really irrelevant to national issues when she hit Cruz with the one about something that was recorded in private that he said about Trump. Pretty low for Bash and CNN to be purposely picking fights. There were not many attacks against Hillary during the debate, but were quite a few against Trump and Cruz.
Cruz: "All horse thieves are Democrats, but not all Democrats are horse thieves."
2) Mike Huckabee. Granted, he was at the small first debate, but he stayed to message and offered great insight. I think he is terribly underrated. He may not stand a chance to win, but I suspect he will stick around for awhile longer. And I hope he does.
Huckabee: "If Islam is as wonderful and peaceful as its adherents say, shouldn't they be begging us" to surveil their mosques?"
3) Rick Santorum. Still at the smaller debate, but he and Huckabee have my interest for their appeals to religious liberties. I think Santorum did a great job in defending those issues but got a little flustered by Lindsey Graham. "The fact of the matter is, Islam is different ... the idea that that is
protected under the First Amendment is wrong." said Santorum. I agree. Why
do we keep extending Constitutional rights to non-Americans???
Santorum: "We have to stop worrying about offending some people and start defending all Americans."
Santorum: "Not all Muslims are jihadist but "all jihadists are Muslim"
4) Donald Trump. My interest in Trump is falling somewhat. I would certainly still vote for him if he is nominated but there is a difference between conservatism and populism. Trump appeals to populism and to conservatives who find populism appealing . Trump is strong on National security and I am not sure who interjected it, but the talk of "innocent civilians" being killed is the reason wars become politically correct and then people lose. Trump did not clarify very well (or at all) what he meant by "shutting down parts of the internet." I might be OK with shutting down part of the internet if that means cat
pictures. Except for the fact that that would only leave 25% of the
internet left. :-)
The Mosques that were shut down in France weren't shut down for their
message but because they were stockpiling weapons. I'm not so sure just
listening to the message will cut it.Vladimir Putin pretty much unofficially/officially endorsed Donald Trump
calling him "bright and talented" and the "absolute leader" in the 2016
race. Trump did say just after the debate that he will NOT run as third party no matter what
5) Ben Carson. Carson is about to drop off the radar. I hate to say it but I think he may have already peaked. I believe his support will likely shift to Cruz. Ben Carson just told the press that he would likely be a "one term
president." I like the guy but I think making that kind of an
announcement will more likely make him a no term president. Between naps, Ben Carson had some good responses.
6) Marco Rubio. If he would get his stuff together on amnesty and immigration reform he might be a candidate of interest. This would have been a good night for Rubio to take a drink of water. Better Press. Marco Rubio said this week that we need a "top-down review" of our Immigration system.
Yeah right, just what we need: another government committee to
investigate the government.
7) Chris Christie. He did perform strong on national defense. I will
give him that. He referenced a couple times that because he was from
Jerssey, he would be tough. "A no fly zone is a no fly zone" --Old New
Jersey Proverb Christie will close down every bridge to the United States
to keep out terrorists
Christie: "Terror threats "is the new normal" under Obama and Clinton."
8) Rand Paul. His libertarian ideas are some of the good things
about him and his libertarian idea are some of the bad things about him. Rand Paul is terrible on foreign policy. Much like his dad. Paul also started out with an attack on Trump (again). He has tried it at every debate and it NEVER helps him. He is slow to learn.
9) Carly Fiorina: I am tired of this "because I am a woman" stuff from her. The review of her work history with HP is mixed....but mostly not good. And she claims to know all the world leaders. Carly Fiorina made a critical mistake when she mentioned Kim Jong Un and then didn't throw in that she knew him, too.
10) Jeb Bush. Not even a consideration any more. "________" - Jeb Bush's most memorable response tonight. They should have a moment of silence for Jeb Bush since this will likely be his last debate.
Shorter Jeb Bush: Refugees aren't a problem. Let them all in!
11) George Pataki. He talked strong on national defense, I was surprised. But he was governor of New York during 911.
12)Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham needs to start using decaf stuff as he was over wound. If you took a drink whenever Lindsay Graham eye rolled at Rick Santorum. You wouldn't be awake for the 2nd debate.
Of ISIS, Graham said he will "knock them off the internet" --What does that mean??
His most memorable line: "Princess Buttercup would not like this!"
He would rate higher if the issue was entertainment value.
13)CNN The biggest loser as they clearly showed their disdain for the Republican party. You won't see a performance like that when CNN moderates the Democrat debate. But perhaps Wolf Blitzer clarified it best when he said "CNN is America." They truly think they are. CNN also interpreted the Bible their own way as they asked about refugees. But I have never been able to find the Bible verse that says we should let
terrorists in the country because you're supposed to love them. Neither did CNN.
Wolf kept saying"we're only just beginning" before each commercial break.
And in the first debate they were purposely making Trump the subject when he was not there to defend himself.
He (Paul Ryan) invited the Congressional Black Caucus and
other minority caucuses to a holiday reception and will try to reach
beyond the Republican base. “It means show up and talk to everybody,
appeal to everyone,” he said.
And that will
start with Republican primary voters, about a third of whom have been
swayed so far by Mr. Trump’s recipe of strict immigration policies,
tough foreign policy talk, blunt and highly personal critiques of his
competitors, and a vague appeal for general greatness.
“There
is this real, palpable anxiety in the country” fueled by stagnant wages
and slow economic growth, Mr. Ryan said, “and then you turn on the TV
and you see ISIS, you see San Bernardino and you see all these security
threats, and it’s like the world is on fire.”
At
the same time, “we have to make sure populism doesn’t trump individual
rights,” he said. “It’s a distraction to prey on fears.”
In other words, Ryan is seeking to sway the election to go the way he thinks it should: Back into the mainstream of establishment Republicans, like himself...and the others who have lost along with him, like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Ryan doesn't get it. The most main stream establishment Republican in the candidate list is Lindsey Graham and he can't even poll as a favorite presidential candidate in his own state.
I need to clarify again that I am not a Republican, so I have no party loyalty to the Republican party and will never hesitate to throw the party under a bus when necessary. That said, I ID myself as more of a Constitutional conservative and the Republican party tends usually to have a better pick of candidates that lean that way. Also, my main focus is on First Amendment issues like religious liberty and free speech. I have stated many times over the years that I dislike politics as a general rule....but will deal with it when it encroaches on religious freedom and free speech.. So, I look for the candidates who I think are most apt and able to address and protect that.
1) Ted Cruz. Before the CNBC Debacle they called a debate, I was thinking Cruz would likely not be in 1st place. I was kind of frustrated with what appeared to be a "lead from behind" mentality with the idea that IF Donald Trump drops out that he stands to gain. Trump may not be dropping out any time soon and more likely not at all. If he did in the future at all it will be too late for Cruz to mount an offense..based on money more than time. However, when he called out the moderators at CNBC for their debate debacle I think he caught a second wind and changed the direction of the debate and the audience knew....even the audience across the country.
2. Donald Trump. Still a wild card, but he has done enough shaking up of DC with just his campaign that I suspect he could do the same in DC. The common enemy most of us face right now is the DC machine and the way it is run year after year after year after year. Anyone going to DC who promises the same old same old should be ignored immediately. Would Trump shake DC up good or bad? I don't think there's any such thing as a good or bad shake. A shake is a shake. The alternative would be to tear it all down and start over. And though that would probably be the best option...a good shake up would work as well.
3) Ben Carson. The top three candidates on this list could be interchanged based on the strength of various subjects, but Carson has my interest for religious liberty issues and as an outsider from DC he would be an asset. He may be soft spoken, but I think he has hard convictions.
4) Mike Huckabee. He's probably a long shot in the scheme of things, but for his stand on religious liberty he is one of the best. There's still some uncertainty on his Common Core position based on some things he has said in the past. However, in a presidential market where a candidate like Hillary Clinton can change her position on an issue within a matter of minutes in the same debate, a change over a few years by Huckabee is politically laudable (at least to me)
5) Marco Rubio. He's very likable. He's just wrong on some issues, like amnesty. His CNBC Debacle remarks were well thought out and his counter against Jeb Bush's attack was successful. 6) Rand Paul. I cant separate him from Ron Paul and I was not a fan of Ron Paul. Rand didn't try any misguided attack this time around, so he is teachable.
7) Bobby Jindal. I was gong to put Jindal and Santorum at the bottom of the list. Not because I don't like their positions on many things, but just because they are long shots at this point...in fact more likely impossibles. However, I am rating all the candidates and once I get past #8, it would take some convincing to support any of them. So #8 is, in many respects, the bottom of my list. Jindal is strong on religious liberty. In may respects right up there with Huckabee. I had high hopes for him and waited for his entrance into the campaign, but I dont think he is going anywhere.
8) Rick Santorum. Same as Jindal, just not quite up there with Huckabee. Jindal is a bit more personable.
9) Chris Christie. He is still here based on his performance at the CNBC Debacle. Otherwise he's still the same.
10) Carly Fiorina. I don't trust her. She has taken positions initially and then changed them when it appeared the conservative trend was going another way. .The media, even at the CNBC Debacle were throwing soft ball questions at her. Being a media darling comes with it's own warnings.
11) Jeb Bush. I cant figure out why he would admit to modeling his campaign after John McCain's campaign. Does he remember that McCain lost???? He tried a cheap shot at Rubio, but Rubio blew it off. Rick Perry's failed campaign sent him RNC establishment clone Austin Barbour from here in Mississippi, which by itself is enough to "just say no" to Bush. But there was already plenty of other reasons to just say no to Jeb Bush.
12) Lindsey Graham. One of the worst Republicans I know, but he got in a few humorous lines at the early debate. He's here for entertainment value.
13) George Pataki. Pataki-who??
14) Jim Gilmore. See comments at 13
------------------------------------------
MEME REPORT: DNC IS PROBABLY RUNNING A HALLOWEEN SPECIAL ON MEMBERSHIPS
Eight Republican presidential candidates, including front-runner Donald Trump, as well as Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis will address thousands of grassroots activists at the Family Research Council’s 10th annual Values Voter Summit this weekend in Washington.
Other candidates who have confirmed their participation in the event include Ben Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
The Values Voter Summit will be held Friday through Sunday at the Omni
Shoreham Hotel in Washington. Featured speakers include Arizona Sen.
John McCain, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and House Majority Whip Steve
Scalise.
But, so what's new when it comes to the lefty anti-religious freedom groups.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and Americans United for
Separation of Church and State are petulantly, and unsurprisingly,
unhappy about everyone making a fuss about the Pope.
Americans United is perturbed that the city of Cape May, New Jersey,
is planning to broadcast the Pope’s September 27 Mass from nearby
Philadelphia at the Cape May Convention Hall. The city, which has waived
charges at the Convention Centre for other non-profit events, organised
this one in conjunction with the Cape May Ministerium — a group of
clergy representing different denominations.
Regardless of the bonhomie and co-operative feelings, Americans United have threatened to sue if the event takes place.
FFRF is similarly vexed about New York City’s giveaway of tickets to
see Pope Francis in Central Park on September 25. This group which
apparently had much, too much time on their hands, insist that it makes
New York City appear “to be endorsing Pope Francis’s sectarian religious
message”.
And if this wasn’t enough, FFRF is also furious over Pope Francis’s
scheduled meeting with inmates at the Curran-Fromhold Correctional
Facility in Philadelphia on September 27. As prisons are
“public-supported”, the group insists, Pope Francis shouldn’t have been
invited to meet with the inmates nor should the inmates have been
permitted to hand carve a chair to present to the Pontiff, even though
they volunteered to do so. SOURCE: Catholic Herald
My picks up to now with information I have up to now:
First off, I need to clarify that I am not a Republican, so I have no party loyalty to the Republican party and will never hesitate to throw the party under a bus. That said, I ID myself as more of a Constitutional conservative and the Republican party tends usually to have a better pick of candidates that lean that way. Also, my main focus is on religious liberty...and I have stated many times over the years that I dislike politics as a general rule....but will deal with it when it encroaches on religious freedom.. So, I look for the candidates who I think are most apt and able to address and protect that. Followed by illegal immigration, abortion, and the economy.
1) Ted Cruz His knowledge of constitutional law and issues is impressive.And he is concerned about religious freedom. He would make a great addition to the Supreme Court some day.....or, if not elected president, attorney general.
2) Mike Huckabee He has moved up in my interest since the last debate, particularly because of the Kim Davis issue. I see him as a long shot, but he polls OK for a long shot candidate. Huckabee rocks on religious freedom
3) Donald Trump. He is a wild card and still an anomaly. The Republican Party needs someone to kick that shoddy foundation they have laid underneath them. He mentioned the vaccine issues in the debate last night, and issues with autism..which even Ben Carson agreed with...in spite of the fact that Megyn Kelly says vaccines are a settled issue scientifically.
4) Rick Santorum. For his stand on religious freedom, abortion, etc. I thought he did a good job of defending his positions in the earlier CNN debate.
5) Bobby Jindal.
I had high hopes he would be a good candidate, particular in the area of
religious freedom. His campaign has not taken off yet...and it may
not.
6) Ben Carson. Very likable and smart guy. Soft spoken, but I think he gets his points across better that way. I am a bit confused on some of the issues with him like minimum wage and immigration. His inclusion, though, for immigrants to come and do jobs Americans don't want to do just wreaks so close to the Democrat philosophy of immigration support as cheap labor. Democrat party was pro slavery in 1800s, Still pro-slavery to be
pro-immigration and justify it by claiming we can use Mexicans as cheap
labor force. So if that's a position he will stick to, then he will being sliding to the bottom of this list very soon.
7) Rand Paul. I think he is very Libertarianesque which is not entirely bad. I am not for marijuana legalization for recreational purposes, but I do agree with him that it should be left to the states to decide. I have no problem with medical usage. Here in Mississippi we have an attempt to get a marijuana initative on the ballot--which it looks like it will fail to get enough people to sign their petition, but I really dislike the way its being promoted. They are pushing it under the guise of being used for medical purposes. and underplaying the fact that they want it for recreational use. In debates, Paul has tried too hard to go after Trump or even Christie and it, with maybe once exception, blows up in his face.
8) Marco Rubio. He is getting better at verbalizing his positions.
9) Chris Christie. I would not have ever expected to put him higher
than Jeb Bush, but his performance at the debate was actually pretty good.
I still don't see him as "conservative" but more time will tell.
When he started to explain what female he would like on the $10 bill, it sounded like he was going to nominate Morticia Addams.
10). Carly Fiorina. I don't have all the "like" for her that other people see. She has flip flopped a several issues, including religious freedom, and sometimes it seems like she says what she says depending on who she is talking to. Carly Fiorina is very wrong on her understanding of the 14th amendment and seems OK with judicial tyranny.
Jeb smoked what??
11) Jeb Bush. Much better performance in last nights debate I still see him as playing both sides of the issue on immigration. He is, as Trump mentioned, pro-Common Core. He also does not have a great pro-life record in spite of what he tried to say last night.
12) Scott Walker His performance can be summed up with this: Oh, was he there?
13) John Kasich. In his opening intro, Shorter Kasich: I am Ronald Reagan. Umm. no.
14) Lindsey Graham. "In my world, Hispanics are Americans" --Lindsey Graham. What can be said about Graham that hasn't been said about a bad case of influenza. I would say Lindsey Graham is dead to me, but that would be an upgrade to the status I already held about him.
15) George Pataki . "just give them all legal status" --George Pataki on immigration. George Pataki plays the Reagan card right out of the gate. Dead to me starting with his position on religious freedom. His last name is still fun to
say, though. (Try saying "President Pataki" 5 times very fast. )
16) Jim Gilmore. Gilmore who?? CNN excluded him from the debate.
I think the debate at CNN was much better than the charade that Fox news tried to pass off as a debate last month. This one actually had exchanges between the candidates. The few that Fox had were in spite of Fox and not because of it,. Jake Tapper was clearly gunning fro Trump and for a few moments he kind of morphed into Megyn Jelly.
A quick word on the polls, a practice which is central to modern
analyses of political races. I believe that polls are far more
scientifically unreliable than they are generally made out to be, and
think that wild inductions are not the safest way to go. Talking to 200
people and deciding what 200 million are thinking is . . . risky. --Doug Wilson
The main issue of discussion is, of course, Kim Davis:
Rich Juzwiak, writing for Gawker, writes the way Gawker would normally do and claims that the only reason Mike Huckabee was interested in Kim Davis was for self promotion.
Huckabee rushed to her side to impose his own agenda on her repugnant
cause. The reason he did this is that he has spent so much time
championing “traditional marriage” that when the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of nationwide same-sex marriage in June, Huckabee watched one of
his most prominent platforms disintegrate under his feet. He watched his
relevance dry up on the spot. That must be terrifying for a
presidential hopeful and famewhore like Huckabee.
Caitlin MacNeal reports at Talking Points Memo:
CNN's Alisyn Camerota asked Huckabee about Charee Stanley, a flight attendant for ExpressJet who was suspended for refusing to serve alcohol. She said it violated her religious beliefs.
"Historically we have made accommodations for people with
religious convictions," Huckabee said when asked if he Stanley has the
right to refuse to serve alcohol.
"You've seen it in Michigan where they spent $25,000
providing foot baths for Muslims students," he said, adding that the
U.S. gave prayer mats to prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Alan Wolfe (Politico) makes an important observation when he notes:
Rights, for one thing, while offering protection against an intrusive state, cannot be enforced without the help of the state.
And we have seen clearly that there is no such thing as equal rights for everyone in the US even though some claim there are. The one that has the state backing will be more equal then any of the others.
Georgia is pushing for a Religious Freedom act. So far most of these so-called Religious Freedom Acts get neutered to the point "why even bother" by the time they are passed.
“The law worked the way it was designed to work,” state Sen. Josh McKoon, R -Columbus said. “We're
not going to say your religious freedom trumps your duty as an elected
official to follow the law.”
Worked? The way it was designed?
The Miami Herald, in an editorial, gave a kudos remark about Lindsey Graham:
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., hit the nail on the head: “I support
traditional marriage, but she’s accepted a job where she has to apply
the law to everyone. And that’s her choice,” he said.
But Graham is a rather unpopular Republican. Even worse as a presidential candidate. So there's hardly much fortifying an issue by using him as an example.
Gun-rights group Florida Carry sued Florida State
University president John Thrasher for banning students from bringing
firearms to this weekend’s home football game against the University of
South Florida. In what, so far, has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments against guns, PalmBeach columnist Frank Cerabino writes:
Thrasher could cite his own deeply held Christian convictions to say
that to allow guns on campus would require him to turn his back on his
God, who made “Thou shalt not kill” one of the 10 Commandments.Jesus never instructed his disciples to “Standeth thy groundeth and smite thine enemies with lethal force, my children.”
No, instead, Jesus spoke against people thinking they have the right to kill other people, even those who did them wrong.
That may be a good argument for Bible control when it is clearly unsafe to keep it in the hands of liberals who might use it against people who they think are doing them wrong.
Man’s choice is between theonomy and autonomy, God’s law versus
self-law. Man, being a sinner, a fallen creature, can only create laws
and societies which, in their developed form, simply amplify man’s sin.
The result is tyranny, rule without God.
The power to make laws is the mark of lordship, sovereignty, or explicit or implicit divinity.
According to William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, “Unlimited power is apt to
corrupt the minds of those who possess it, and this I know, my lords,
that where law ends, Tyranny begins.” Edmund Burke, a year later, 1771,
said, “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” Both men
made their comments in response to the John Wilkes affair. Wilkes
represented the unfettered will of the people as against a still
lingering belief in a higher law.
The word tyranny comes from
the Latin tyrrannus; it means normally rule by an oppressive power, but,
very commonly, tyrannies have been popular. Thus, Adolf Hitler was
clearly a man with a popular following, as was Mussolini, and others as
well. A tyranny can be a popularly elected party, or group of men, so
that a tyranny can exist without a single tyrant. The essence of the
tyranny is that no absolute and God-ordained law and justice prevails,
only the will of a man, a group or party of men, or a majority or a
minority of men. The essence of tyranny is that it represents in some
form the will of man, not the law of God. On the other hand, theonomy
means literally the law of God. In our time, theonomy represents to all
too many people the essence of evil, for the will of man is held to be
the source of determination, of law, and morality.
As various
areas of society, and its peoples, enthrone autonomy, they dethrone
theonomy, and they replace God with man. Thus, in one church after
another, to all practical intent God’s law has been replaced by man’s,
and the rules and canons of the church tend to prevail over God’s law.
In issues relating to sexuality, homosexuality, abortion, and
euthanasia, this has been especially the case. Tyranny in the church as
in the state is tied to this substitution of man’s law for God’s law. Tyranny,
rule without God’s law, is inescapable where theonomy is set aside. The
very statement of the need for theonomy nowadays inflames unbelievers
and churchmen alike and the difference between them is often in name
only.
The tyrants are earnest men, from the days of the Tower of
Babel to the present. They believe that they are alone capable of saving
the world by means of their planned world order. Implicit in their
stand is the belief that the Bible is wrong, and Jesus Christ was wrong.
As an instructor training car salesman in positive thinking as a means
of increasing sales holds, Jesus was a negative thinker and a failure. The
Thirty Tyrants of Greece, pupils of Plato, wanted to save Greece, and
they helped to destroy it. Much of the world’s evil presents itself as
the true good, and a failure to recognize the moral earnestness of evil
can be deadly. The new pornography does not see itself as the purveyor
of dirty books but as the source of true enlightenment, as the basis of
the liberation of man. Its fervor often is marked by a missionary zeal.
Tyranny is increasing the world over. The
decline of the Soviet Empire made way for other and more extensive
tyrannies. The moral warfare underway is more deadly than nuclear war. Jesus
Christ is our Redeemer King, our law-giver from the foundation of the
world. The insane interpretations of Matthew 5:17-20 which seek to
separate Jesus from the law tell us more about the blindness and/or
depravity of such men than they do about the Bible. But all men must be
taught. In Isaiah’s words, “For precept must be upon precept, precept
upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a
little” (Isa. 28:10).
The United States Air Force Bronze Star is awarded to members of the
Air Force and “recognizes acts of heroism performed in ground combat.”
It also recognizes “single acts of merit and meritorious service if the
achievement or service is of a lesser degree than that deemed worthy of
the Legion of Merit; but such service must have been accomplished with
distinction.”
I would like to know what “acts of heroism” Sen.
Lindsey Graham has performed or what service was “accomplished with
distinction.”
Graham’s military record should be under scrutiny.
As an Air Force veteran myself, I believe the awarding of the Air Force
Bronze Star to Graham does a great disservice to those Air Force and
other military branch members who have truly performed acts of heroism
and whose service was accomplished with distinction.
Sitting
behind a desk at the Judge Advocate’s Office in Iraq and Afghanistan
does not qualify as an “act of heroism and accomplishment with
distinction.”
The awarding of the Bronze Star to Sen. Graham by
some high-ranking general in the Air Force is only because Graham is a
senator.
Sen. Graham should be ashamed of himself for accepting an
award that so many of our true heroes earned in battle with their
wounds and their lives.
I am fortunate to have known real military heroes. Sen. Graham, you are no hero
MEME REPORT: OUR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING NEED A COURTESY FLUSH
Graham has already started "whining" practice. Yesterday he appeared on CNN:
Graham: Well, I think he said something that has brought
people who hare frustrated about immigration system to life, but he also
said it in a way that's going to kill my party.
Here's the problem with the Republican Party nationally. We're
getting 27% of the Hispanic vote, we're getting less than 10% of the
African American vote and about 25-26% of the Asian vote. You'll never
convince me that we've gone from 44% of the Hispanic vote, now down to
27 if it were not for the rhetoric around the immigration debate. This
is a moment for the party...
When most illegal immigrants were rapists and drug dealers and there
may be some among them who were good, that is reinforcing a narrative
between the Republican party and the Hispanic community that is going to
destroy our ability win a presidential election. And the part needs to
be clear on how we handle this.
When you don;t have answers, you just whine. He has been senator for several years. Maybe if he would have pushed to have the issues addressed then, he wouldn't have to whine about it now.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham blames 21-year-old Dylann Roof, the
man who shot and killed nine African Americans praying in Charleston,
for his actions, and the presidential hopeful doesn't want the
Confederate flag to be used as an excuse.
"We're not going to give this a guy an excuse about a book he might
have read or a movie he watched or a song he listened to or a symbol out
anywhere. It's him...not the flag," the Republican senator told CNN's
"New Day" Alisyn Camerota,
One of the common photos of Roof
circulated in the media is one of him seen posing by a car featuring a
South Carolina license plate depicting the Confederate flag.
When
Graham was asked his thoughts regarding the Confederate flag, he said,
"It works here, that's what the State House agreed to do. You could
probably visit other places in the country near some symbol that doesn't
quite strike you right." --CNN
Obamas former press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was hired by McDonalds to
help with communication. Not missing a beat, Gibbs said complaints about
cold french fries or missing orders will now be blamed on the previous
McDonalds administration under George Bush..
John Kerry is telling sources that he was riding his bike just fine until he was swift-biked by some Republicans
CNN's Erin Burnett suggested that Pamela Geller "relished the idea of
being a target by Muslims." Obviously not as much as Erin Burnett
relishes the idea that people think she is a credible journalist.
Lindsey Graham has invited Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner to be a part of the
Republican party. Graham will need a very strong VP candidate for him to
even get close to the White House and he understands that Jenner has
always been a strong runner.
Jimmy Carter told the AARP this week that most Americans are white racists.
Carter, of course, spends his time thinking its still the 1970s, still
hopes to get a second term, and is still trying to "catch them Duke
Boys."
Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee said that Hillary
Clinton "is too corrupt to be president. " Chafee, of course, has no
chance of winning the nomination. Not because he is so unknown, but
because the Democratic Party does not nominate candidates who tell the
truth.
Hillary Clinton said last week that her candidacy will "restore faith
and confidence and optimism in the future of the country we love." It's
not clear which country on her donor list she was talking about.
Truth be told, Hillary Clinton would be the best candidate the Democrats
could offer. She clearly best represents everything sick, twisted, and
fraudulent in the Democratic Party.
ISIS should already be WasWas
Why do we need guns? Because it's real hard to throw a rock 1200 feet per second.
American Pharoah has won the Triple Crown. On Monday he will announce his 2016 candidacy for president.
Regardless of the rumors, American Pharoah does not have his own email server.
Take notice, Tom Brady, American Pharoah won the Triple Crown without deflating any footballs.
Somewhere, Hillary Clinton is wondering how American Pharoah could have won without donations from the Clinton Foundation.
Somewhere Karl Rove is very surprised that the Belmont Stakes wasn't won by Ohio.
The New York Times has made no effort to find any paper trail to uncover
Benghazi, the IRS, or even Hilary Clintons emails. But they did find
out that Marco Rubio and his wife have gotten 17 tickets. Next up: Did
Ted Cruz turn in all his homework in 6th grade??..??
“Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula.”
The Internet was quick to point out, because “al” is an Arabic definite article analogous to the English word “the.” A number of English words with Arabic roots begin with “al”: albatross, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alfalfa, algebra, algorithm, and others. Paul Simon may have something more to say about that.
“If I were president of the United States, I would veto any bill that did not have a pathway to citizenship. You would have a long, hard path to citizenship … but I want to create that path because I don’t like the idea of millions of people living in America for the rest of their lives being the hired help. That’s not who we are.”
Mr. Graham argued that his party risks losing the presidency with its current hard line on immigration.
“We’ll lose,” he told USA Today. “I mean, we’ve got a big hole we’ve dug with Hispanics. We’ve gone from 44 percent of the Hispanic vote (in the 2004 presidential election) to 27 percent (in 2012). You’ll never convince me … it’s not because of the immigration debate.” [Washington Times]
It would reverse recent movement away from the
users-pay/users-benefit principle that is the best and fairest way to
fund transportation infrastructure;
It does not mandate that states do anything, but would simply give them a new option;
It could and should be a step toward devolving a major portion of the highway system from federal to state control; and,
It could open the door to increased use of long-term public-private
partnerships to rebuild and modernize America’s most important
transportation infrastructure.
On The Mike Gallagher Show, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had this to say
about Obama and the White House when it comes to Benghazi, “Our
Democratic friends, for the most part, have been in the tank over
Benghazi. They think it’s to get me reelected. Some guy said this about
me yesterday on the left: The only reason I cared about this was because
I have six tea party opponents. Well, if that’s true, I’m the biggest
scumbag in America. I don’t think that’s true; I know it’s not true. It
would be almost impossible for Lindsey Graham — given who I am and what
I’ve been doing for the last 20 years — not to care about those in
harm’s way, who get killed, and not go on to hold the administration
accountable that lied about it…The scumbags are the people in the White
House who lied about this.”
While speaking at for the National Day of Prayer, Dr James Dobson chimed in: “President Obama, before he was elected,
made it very clear that he wanted to be the abortion president,” Dobson
fulminated. “He didn’t make any bones about it. This is something that
he really was going to promote and support, and he has done that, and in
a sense he is the abortion president.”
On May 2, Raw Story reported:
In a column published at World Net Daily,
conservative pundit and AM talk radio show host Alan Keyes said that
“genocidal” President Barack Obama’s defenders use the president’s
“black skin is some kind of magic cloak” to protect him from criticism. Right Wing Watch reported
that Keyes — an erstwhile presidential candidate and Senate challenger
to then Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) — said that Democrats are using that
political cover to “overthrow the constitutional self-government of the
American people” and carry out “an assault on religious liberty.”
Obama, said Keyes, is on a mission to wipe out the black population
through “the targeted promotion of abortion in the black
community. Throughout his career, Obama has shilled for this genocidal
movement with fanatical zeal.”
On May 3, Obama delivered his weekly radio address:
" But so far this year, Republicans in Congress have blocked or voted down
every serious idea to create jobs and strengthen the middle class.
They’ve said “no” to raising the minimum wage, “no” to equal pay for
equal work, and “no” to restoring the unemployment insurance they let
expire for more than two million Americans looking for a new job.
I acted to raise more workers’ wages by requiring that workers on new
federal contracts earn a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – and as
long as Republicans in Congress refuse to act, I’ll keep working with
cities, states, and businesses to give more Americans a raise. I acted
to encourage more pay transparency and strengthen enforcement of equal
pay laws, so that more women have the tools they need to earn fair pay.
And I’m modernizing regulations to make sure that more Americans who
work overtime get the pay that they’ve earned. I’ve launched new hubs to
help attract more high-tech manufacturing jobs to America – and ordered
a reform of job training programs to make sure more Americans can earn
the skills that employers need right now. I’ve brought together business
leaders to help us connect more classrooms to high-speed internet, and
give more of the long-term unemployed a better shot at finding a job.
But we could do a lot more if Republicans in Congress were less
interested in stacking the deck in favor of those at the top, and more
interested in growing the economy for everybody. They’ve now voted more
than 50 times to take apart the Affordable Care Act – imagine if they
voted 50 times on serious jobs bills.
That’s why I’m going to take action on my own wherever I can. To grow
our economy from the middle-out, not the top down. To give every
American who works hard a chance to get ahead."
Washington Times columnist
Emily Miller has written a jaw-dropping book about the arduous process
required to legally own a gun in our nation’s capital. At first glance,
since the cover features Miller in a pink tank top holding her SIG
Sauer, it appears to be a basic story about a girl learning to shoot a
gun for the first time. It is nothing of the sort. Miller relays going
through each and every onerous, tedious requirement Washington, D.C.
requires to simply acquire a firearm – and that does not even include carrying a
firearm, which is prohibited unless in a box and under limited
circumstances. She observes, “there is no other constitutional right
that requires American citizens to pass tests to exercise it.”
This book is
an eye opener for those of us who do not live in an area with strict gun
control laws. In Arizona, which has the least restrictive gun control
laws in the country, you can buy a gun from virtually anyone, sometimes
instantaneously without a background check, you do not need to register
it, and can carry it concealed or unconcealed without a permit.
Miller
intersperses her story with a comprehensive update on the latest gun
control efforts by the Obama administration, a few state governments,
and related legal battles. She provides real statistics related to guns
and crime, and contrasts them with liberal hypocrisy. Gun-related
murders in the U.S. have decreased almost 40 percent in the last 20
years. Britain, which has strict gun control laws, has few gun-related
homicides but a higher violent crime rate than the U.S. Washington, D.C.
has in place all the gun control laws that Obama is pushing on the
federal level, yet robberies with guns went up 18 percent there in just
one year. And, you can bet none of those guns were legally registered
under D.C. law. [SOURCE: Intellectual Conservative: Second Amendment Hurdles and Liberal Hypocrisy: Emily Gets Her Gun….But Obama Wants to Take Yours]
Benghazi being stilll unsettled, the National Review's Andrew McCarthy asked:
"Outnumbered and fighting off wave after jihadist wave,
Americans were left to die in Benghazi while administration officials
huddled, not to devise a rescue strategy, but to spin the election-year
politics. The most powerful and capable armed forces in the history of
the world idled, looking not to their commander-in-chief but to a State
Department that busied itself writing press releases about phantom
Islamophobia. The president of the United States, the only
constitutional official responsible for responding, was nowhere to be
found.We are left with four dead Americans and an emerging paper trail of
dereliction stretching from Benghazi to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.Benghazi is not about what Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta or Susan
Rice or Ben Rhodes or Jay Carney or Robert Lovell did or didn’t do. The
only question is: What was President Barack Obama doing, and not doing,
during the critical hours when his sworn duty required decisive action?
Mr. Obama owes Americans a detailed answer. Now."
On May 4, Greg Penglis (Intellectual Conservative) offered this insight:
"Ask yourself why
the socialist Left is so protective of this president? Why do they
shelter him, coddle him, reinforce his insecurities, guard him from
questions, dismiss his scandals, delay proper judicial proceedings and
investigations, allow for his made up laws and regulations, cover for
his hopeless foreign policy, rewrite the narratives and history, chain
him to a teleprompter, and refuse to let him stand completely on his own
like every other president? It is because the socialist Left is
completely racist, and doesn’t believe a black man is up to the job of
president. It is not the accused therefore that have the race problem,
it is the accusers. Barack Obama
will never know what it is like to be a full president, because he will
never be subject to the full scrutiny of office; not from the press, not
from the public, not from Congress, nor from the Judiciary. He will
never be fully held accountable, never have to fully defend himself,
most likely never be impeached, and never be responsible for what
happens during his term of office. The socialist Left has condemned not
only Barack Obama to second class status as a president, but every
subsequent Democrat black president to second class status as well,
until this leftist racism is purged from our political system." :[Intellectual Conservative: Why Obama Will Never Know a Full Presidency]
Libertarian Party Political Director Carla Howell issued this statement:
"Reports of Obama's low poll ratings cite the botched rollout of
Obamacare as one cause. But it's also the realization that Obama broke
his promises.
He said you'd be able to keep your doctor – but many have lost their doctors.
He said you could keep your insurance plan. But millions of plans
were cancelled, leaving people suddenly uninsured and vulnerable to
catastrophic losses and delays in treatment that harm their health."
On May 5, the Committee to Protect Jourtnalsists observed:
Nearly seven months ago, CPJ published its first in-depth report
on press freedom in the United States, concluding that the Obama
administration's aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information,
broad surveillance programs, and moves to stem the routine disclosure of
information to the press meant that the president had fallen far short of his
campaign promise to have the most open government in U.S. history. What's
changed since? A quick survey of recent events suggests not much. [Obama transparency record remains unimpressive]
In light of the events surrounding Cliven Bundy, Right Wing Watch reported former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said "
“We
have a guy in the White House that I believe, and have seen it on many
occasions, is the most dangerous thing — he’s more dangerous than any
other threat we face as a nation,” Tancredo said. “Barack Obama, I
believe, is dedicated to destroying the America that I love.” Contending that Obama has “methodically shredded the Constitution,”
Tancredo continued, “He should have been impeached. He should have been
impeached many times.”
[Right Wing Watch:
Tom Tancredo Warns Obama Is 'More Dangerous Than Any Other Threat We Face As A Nation']
On May 7, Jon Rappoport posted that "Under the selective radar of mainstream media, Barack Obama has been
carving out a whole new level of support for Monsanto and other
destructive biotech giants." [Jon Rappoport's Blog:: Barack Obama and the Monsanto betrayal]
On May 8, the author at "Potluck" wrote:
A biographer has told the world that he feels that President Obama is
disappointed in the world. Really? Well my most obvious response is
that many in the world are very disappointed in him as well. But there
is more to this. He is disappointed in the world because he views with
rose-colored glasses on how the world should be instead of what it
actually is.
He truly believes that if we just make the minimum wage a little
higher people will get lifted out poverty. Although we have raised the
minimum wage throughout the years and we still have poverty. So the
latest is a “living wage”. Which is just another myth that will never work on a national level.
If the government just gets involved we can make the world more
“fair”. He doesn’t seem to understand that life isn’t fair, nor will it
ever be.
If the rich just give more of their money, the poor will get more.
Again, this is just another myth. President Obama is a perfect example
of that. He has made less money in 2013 than he did in 2014, I didn’t
get more because he has less. Nor has anyone else.' [Potluck: President Obama is Disappointed in the World Says Biographer]
On May 8 the Southern Poverty Law Center praised Obama:
The Obama administration has taken an important step to protect every
child’s right to a public education by releasing guidance today that
outlines the legal responsibilities of schools to provide equal access
regardless of a child’s or parent’s national origin or immigration
status, the SPLC said.
“The Obama administration demonstrated
today a commitment to one of our nation’s most fundamental ideals:
public education,” said Jerri Katzerman, SPLC deputy legal director.
“This guidance highlights the legal right of all children – regardless
of their immigration status – to a public education as guaranteed by Plyler v. Doe more than 30 years ago. It is an important step to safeguard this right in school districts across the nation.
As President Obama was winding up his speech at a California DNC fundraiser, he was interrupted by a heckler
and attempted to dissipate the situation before jokingly complaining
about the heckler screwing up his big finish. The president was speaking
about cynicism and seizing the future when someone in the crowd started
loudly yelling.
According to USA Today,
the man was shouting, “Freedom for Ethiopia!” In a letter he passed
around, the man described himself as “an exiled journalist and freedom
activist” trying to raise awareness about the plight of Ethiopians.
Obama tried to calm him down, saying, “I agree with you, although why
don’t I talk about it later, ’cause I’m just about to finish.” When the
shouting continued, the president lightly complained, “You kind of
screwed up my ending, but that’s okay.”
On May 9, Rush Limbaugh attacked the Obama administration for "hashtag activism":
“If you’re going to do something, don’t look impotent when you do it!
You know, it’s okay for John Q. Public and Jane Q. Public, who can’t do
anything about it, to get all excited about a Twitter hashtag
movement––everybody wants to show they care and so forth––but the most
powerful man in the world looks impotent and pathetic and then so does
his country when the Twitter hashtag becomes the instrument here.”
On May 9, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich ripped into the White House for the decision to allow President Barack Obama
to hold a press event at a Walmart. Calling the staffer at the White
House who planned the event a “numbskull,” Reich wondered how it was
possible for the president’s staff to essentially endorse Walmart in
spite of what he said was their unfair compensation practices.
On May 9, Blue Virginia reported:
"President Obama announced
"more than 300 private and public sector commitments to create jobs and
cut carbon pollution by advancing solar deployment and energy
efficiency." In addition, he announced "new executive actions that will
lead to $2 billion in energy efficiency investments in Federal
buildings; smarter appliances that will cut carbon pollution by more
than 380 million metric tons - equivalent to taking 80 million cars off
the road for one year - and will save businesses nearly $26 billion on
their energy bills; and training programs at community colleges across
the country that will assist 50,000 workers to enter the solar industry
by 2020." [Blue Virginia: President Obama Announces Commitments, Executive Actions to Advance Solar Power, Energy Efficiency]
President Barack Obama earned “four Pinocchios” from the Washington Post Fact Checker,
the highest ranking for a political lie, for asserting that Republicans
filibustered 500 pieces of legislation, an exaggeration of nearly five
times the reality.
OP/ED BYTES: May 12, 2014: Boko Haram, an al Qaeda knock-off based in Nigeria,
is picking on children. In search of headlines to frighten, Abubakar
Shekau leads his terrorist band to attack schools, killing boys and
kidnapping girls to sell as wives and slaves. Education, they say, is
not for girls, and Western learning, which teaches women and girls to
think for themselves, is regarded as the worst kind of education,
because it’s rooted in Judeo-Christianity and it deprives men of
compliant servants................Michelle Obama
was photographed last week holding up a Twitter sign reading “Bring
back our girls.” Though they’re not actually “our girls,” her sentiment
is spot on — the kidnappings in Nigeria are an affront to human decency. When the misogynist practices of Islam in Africa was to be the subject of Somalia-born
Ayaan Ali Hirsi’s speech at Brandeis University the other day, the
school’s administration bowed to the liberal left and disinvited her. On
that occasion Mrs. Obama showed no interest in standing up for women, lest she offend an Islamist..............The terrorism of Boko Haram
is rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam that calls for a
worldwide caliphate. Naive Western liberals refuse to acknowledge the
danger of this virulent ideology. Instead, they take every opportunity
to appease the Islamists as a show of their tolerance. The abuse of
women often goes unremarked, and the first lady conducts America’s
foreign policy by holding up a sign like a panhandler. Tweets and
“raising awareness” won’t save the kidnapped girls in Nigeria.
Attention is precisely what the kidnappers seek..............When
Thomas Jefferson was faced with the question of what to do about Muslim
extremists taking Americans hostage on the coast of Africa, his
answer was the creation of the U.S. Navy. Overwhelming force exacted a
peace. At some point, there will be an incident demanding an effective
American answer, and Mr. Obama will have to realize appeasement
doesn’t work, and he’ll have to prepare the fleet. (SOURCE: Washington Times: "EDITORIAL: Obama’s diplomacy by Twitter")
ON THE RECORD: May 12, 2014: I have to
disagree with Rush on this point. I have not enough evidence to support
the idea that the Obama administration has not acted against any
terrorist issue because of race. Granted, I have not seen the Obama
administration act against terrorism at all, but I think their lack of
action has been particularly lacking on when the terrorists are
Muslim. The Washington Times put out an editorial yesterday (:"EDITORIAL: Obama’s diplomacy by Twitter") that I think hit all the right places on the Obama admin and their appeasement policies:
More at: Z-News Blog: I have to disagree with Rush Limbaugh on this point
On May 13, Jason Howerton (The Blaze) reported:
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday argued the Obama
“regime” — as well as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and
First Lady Michelle Obama — “sympathize” with radical Islamic terror
group Boko Haram.
Limbaugh also said the recent hashtag activism promoted by the first
lady is actually “aimed at helping” the terrorists of Boko Haram.
“The Regime, Hillary, Michelle Obama sympathize with Boko Haram,”
Limbaugh said. “They’re blaming the Christian Nigerian government for
creating Boko Haram, and they want to get rid of the Nigerian
government, because if you do that, if you appease the terror group by
getting rid of the group you think is responsible for their existence,
then you’ve made peace with them. You’ve made friends with them and
they’ll leave us alone, or whatever convoluted thinking. I’m sorry, my
ability to comprehend liberalism only goes so far.” [The Blaze: Rush Limbaugh’s Explosive Claim About Radical Terrorist Group Boko Haram and the Obama ‘Regime’]
The liberal hubris is that government can do anything to change the
earth's climate or prevent the next big hurricane, earthquake or
monsoon. These are the people in Washington who can't run a website,
can't deliver the mail and can't balance a budget. But they are going to
prevent droughts and forest fires.
The President's doomsday claims last week served mostly to undermine the
alarmists' case for radical action on climate change. Truth always
seems to be the first casualty in this debate.
This is the tactic of tyrants. Americans are wise to be wary about
giving up our basic freedoms and lowering our standard of living to
combat an exaggerated crisis.
On May 13, PBS Frontline revealed a documentary that reports Barack Obama's lies. It
shows candidate, Senator, Obama promising, "No more secrecy. That's a
commitment that I make to you as president!" And, "I will
provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they
need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our
Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wiretapping of American
citizens." And, "No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.
That is not who we are. That's not what is necessary to defeat the
terrorists." And, then, finally: "BARACK OBAMA, President of the
United States: The laws that are written will be more open to the public.
No more secrecy. That's the commitment I make to you as president!"
(And he now was President.) All of those promises, from Obama, were also lies.
Furthermore, this documentary makes clear that both Bush
and Obama have consistently tried to imprison whistleblowers, within the NSA
and elsewhere, who attempted to get word out about this rampant law-breaking by
the federal government. Edward Snowden was just the last of a long line of
those. At one point, practically the entire top rung of the U.S. Justice
Department were preparing to resign over this matter. NSA Senior Executive
Thomas Drake was fired over it, prosecuted with the threat of life
imprisonment, and then, when Obama ultimately couldn't find anything serious to
charge him with, just stripped financially to pay his legal expenses. And, of
course, Obama still wants to kill Edward Snowden for exposing this
"Program."
On May 17, Obama released this statement about International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia:
"Tomorrow, as we commemorate the 10th
annual International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, we recommit
ourselves to the fundamental belief that all people should be treated
equally, that they should have the opportunity to reach their fullest
potential, and that no one should face violence or discrimination -- no
matter who they are or whom they love.
"This year, the United
States celebrates the 60th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education,
the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, and the 45th anniversary
of the Stonewall riots. In doing so, we reflect on lessons learned from
our own civil rights struggles and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring
that the human rights of all people are universally protected.
"At
a time when, tragically, we are seeing increased efforts to criminalize
or oppress LGBT persons, we call on partners everywhere to join us in
defending the equal rights of our LGBT brothers and sisters, and in
ensuring they are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve."
On May 19, Nick Gillespie (Reason.com) critques Obama's knowledge of his own admiisitration:
So it turns out that President
Obama—that whip-smart guy who is so super-curious about everything
(unlike that quitter-snowbilly former Gov. Sarah Palin
amirite?)—apparently had no idea that his administration was
letting veterans croak while on waiting lists for care at Veterans
Affairs (V.A.) facilities. At the very least,
his people knew about the waiting-list problems, including
inaccurate reporting on treatment times, back in 2008.
You remember the Fast and Furious gun-walking snafu? He read
about that in the papers. Same thing with NSA surveillance. And it
took him a few days to realize that the Obamacare website was
tripping balls but he finally started to get news reports about it
after a few days. And needless to say, he didn't have any idea that
the IRS—his IRS—was targeting Tea Party groups until he
read about in the papers.
I'm guessing that he still doesn't really know that his Justice
Department keeps deporting immigrants and raiding medical marijuana
dispensaries in California either. At record rates. Because, you
know, he said he wasn't going to pull that shit. Can somebody slip
him a newspaper story about those things so he can finally get
cracking?" [Reason.com: It's a Good Thing That Obama Reads the Paper Because Otherwise He'd Have No Idea What His Administration is Doing]
The Christian Post reported Pastor James Garlow's opinion of President Obama:
President Barack Obama's legacy should be that he "morally and
economically destroyed a wonderful experiment called America," said
megachurch Pastor James Garlow of Skyline Church in San Diego, Calif.,
who blasted the president for his pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage
views.
"I can tell you what it ought to be. But whether
historians will do what they have done with some other things and be
revisionistic, I don't know," Garlow said in an interview with The Daily Caller.
Garlow,
who leads a 2,500-member congregation, called Obama the "abortion
president" and said that even though people point out that he has a
model marriage and is a wonderful father, his opposition to traditional
marriage has been a "catastrophic blow to America."
"Among other
things, this man has done more to harm life and to harm the institution
of marriage and the family than any other president ever," Garlow said.[Christian Post: Megachurch Pastor James Garlow: Obama's Legacy Is That He 'Morally and Economically Destroyed America']
On May 20, Bill O’Reilly tore into President Obama for, once again, first learning about some huge government scandal in the media;
this time, the growing outrage over mismanagement at VA facilities.
O’Reilly called this a disturbing pattern suggesting that the president
may not even be paying attention to what’s happening around him.
O’Reilly was disturbed at how the president and his advisors “are the
last to know about major problems,” and asked, “Is the president even
paying attention?” He charged that Obama keeps on “incompetent
administrators” far longer than they should be in office, and the
“erosion of confidence” in the government has a lot to do with his
leadership.
On May 20, Daniel Greenfield (Front Page Mag) critiqued Obama:
Al Qaeda was never bound by Obama’s insistence on limiting the war to
the same locations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. Al Qaeda could
and would spring up anywhere there was an opportunity. While Obama was
losing to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda was rising in its
hometowns in the Middle East and its old stomping grounds in Africa.
Boko Haram was one of the many dragon’s teeth
sown by Osama bin Laden. The delay in making that connection and
putting Boko Haram on the terror list was caused by a White House which
insisted on the distinction between core Al Qaeda and everything else.
Meanwhile US intelligence agencies were warning that Al Qaeda was a
global network that was no longer dependent on a central leadership.
Obama’s rigid focus on core Al Qaeda made it difficult to understand
and prevent what was happening in Syria, Libya and Mali. It was only
French intervention that prevented Al Qaeda from seizing Mali, but it
was Obama’s intervention that allowed Al Qaeda to seize portions of
Libya, murder four Americans and attempt to seize Mali. Obama’s confused
and incoherent policy in Syria, where Al Qaeda dominates the
opposition, nearly led him to engage in another disastrous regime change
intervention that would have turned over a country with WMDs and the
remnants of a recent nuclear program to Al Qaeda.
Obama tried to limit the scope of the War on Terror by maintaining
rigid boundaries between core Al Qaeda and its affiliates and between
its open affiliates and its covert affiliates. This served his political
purposes by allowing him to declare victory, but his word games did not
change the nature of Al Qaeda.
It only blinded the United States to its next move.
To claim victory, Obama had to define Al Qaeda as narrowly as
possible, while Al Qaeda was defining itself as broadly as possible in
order to actually win on the battlefield.
Obama saw the war as tying up old business. He pivoted to Afghanistan
to finish what he claimed Bush had left undone. He went after Bin Laden
to arrest him and try him in a civilian court in order to end the
military tribunals. Instead of fighting to defeat Al Qaeda, he was
working to defeat Bush’s policies.[Front Page Mag: Obama Lost the War on Al Qaeda, While Claiming to Have Won It]
On May 22, Fire Andrea Mitchell observed:
Obama is mad as hell about his VA corruption. So mad in fact that he
spent the first half of the day touring the baseball Hall of Fame in New
York, closing it to the general public. Now, Obama madly got on Air Force One and went to yet another fundraiser in the cesspool known as Chicago.[Fire Andrea Mitchell: Mad as hell! Obama goes fundraising in Chicago]
We already know Obama and his wife hate America’s veterans. We’ve seen
his response with the VA allowing veterans to die off. Now, Obama’s
executive order that raised the minimum wage for lazy federal workers is
starting to affect veterans too. A nursing home for veterans is closing
down in Louisiana because of Obama’s federal minimum wage hike, and at
least one veteran will now become homeless.[Fire Andrea Mitchell: Obama’s executive order raising federal minimum wage now affecting veterans]
White House Dossier offers up three likely reasons why Obama wouldn’t fire Shinseki:
1. Obama is Shinseki, and Shinseki is Obama. Eric
Shinseki assumed office the day after Obama did in 2009. For Obama to
fire Shinseki at this point is to admit his own inadequacy and to reveal
what I assume to be true: that Obama was not paying personal attention
to the VA and not cracking the whip.
You see, when the White House, and the president in particular, shows
an interest in an agency or an issue, people get very nervous, and what
is normally a cumbersome, immovable bureaucracy starts to creak to
life.
If Obama ever met with Shinseki one-on-one or even held a phone call with him, I’d be surprised.
2. What happens once you fire Shinseki? Well, as the Julie Pace of
the Associated Press points out in the video below, you have to replace
him.
And unless Obama replaces him with John McCain, that would mean weeks of
heated discussion about the nominee, a heightened focus on the issue,
and dramatic Senate hearings – all as we approach Election Day 2014. Not
good for Obama and the Democrats.
But Obama’s executive incompetence is showing. What the White House
should do is sack Shinseki now, nominate a replacement next week, and
insist Congress hold hearings immediately because of the urgent need to
get someone to work on the problems. Then Obama might get the issue
behind him well before summer is out.
3. I think Obama feels bad for Shinseki. I really do. Everyone seems
to agree that Shinseki, who had part of his foot blown off in Vietnam
and served his country in the army for nearly 40 years, is a patriot and
a decent man who cares about veterans. And he has made some progress
with some of the VA’s system problems
On May 29, The Progressive reported:
India’s
new prime minister, Narendra Modi, has such a dubious past that the
Bush Administration prohibited him from coming to the United States.
Activists and scholars expressed deep concern when President Obama
reached out to Modi, who took charge of India on Monday as head of the
rightwing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
“The President invited Narendra Modi to visit Washington at a
mutually agreeable time to further strengthen our bilateral
relationship,” the White House stated after Modi’s electoral victory in
India in mid-May.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a
quasi-governmental body, had recommended that Modi be kept out of the
United States for facilitating a 2002 pogrom as the head of the Indian
state of Gujarat that killed thousands of people, mainly Muslim. Acting
on the recommendation, the Bush Administration in 2005 issued a visa ban
on Modi,
The Commission tried to put the best face on Obama's course change. [The Progressive: Obama's Embrace of India's Rightwing Leader Provokes Concern]
All American Blogger offered this meme on Obama in light of the VA scandal:
And we close off the month with a critque offered by Donald Trump at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans:
“We have a man in the White House who doesn’t have a clue.....It seems to me that Obama can’t wait to
get out of the White House so he can go play golf. He doesn’t have the
right instincts to be president. He isn’t tenacious and he isn’t tough,”
