Come On-Quit Lying to Us!

Calling President Obama, Senator Harry Reid, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi disingenuous is, at best inaccurate.  Let’s face it; these three have been lying through their teeth to the American people.  They have shifted into high gear over the government shutdown/continuing resolution and the debt ceiling.

In the first place, all three keep talking about how they are willing to negotiate with the Republicans.  Then they turn right around and say that they will not compromise on any of the points that have been brought up by the Republicans.  Apparently none of them understand the meaning of negotiate (“to bring about, through discussion and COMPROMISE).  It is obvious that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have no intention of compromising, and they have actually stated their intention is not to compromise, in spite of their rhetoric.

Before the 2008 election, when the Congress (made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate) was debating raising the debt ceiling, then Senator Obama made the following comments about President Bush.  “The way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China, in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion.  The first forty-two presidents, number forty-three added $4 trillion by his lonesome so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are gonna have to pay back, $30,000 for every man, woman, and child.  That’s irresponsible.  It’s unpatriotic.”

After making that statement, Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt limit.  Now, after running the national debt up to $17 trillion, Mr. Obama is demanding that Congress vote to raise the debt limit, saying that it is necessary just to pay our bills.  Is he irresponsible and unpatriotic?  (I’m just using his definition.)

Obama has said numerous times that the inflammatory rhetoric needs to cease.  Does he mean calling Republicans “jihadists” or likening them to wife abusers?  Does he mean calling anyone opposed to Obamacare as racist?  Maybe he is referring to those calling Republicans terrorists, extremists, or arsonists.  ALL of these comments came from Democrats, some in the House, some in the Senate, and some in the White House, specifically Mr. Obama himself, after his call to cease the inflammatory rhetoric.

It should be noted here that the government “shutdown” is somewhat a misnomer.  Actually, only about 18% of the government is shut down (Perhaps we should simply dismiss that 18%.  We seem to be getting along just fine without them.  We could eliminate the EPA, the Commerce Department, the Education Department, and the Energy Department.  That would save plenty of money.

The Obama administration (and the buck stops at Obama’s desk) has the option of declaring what/who is essential to the operation of the government.  With that option, his administration has decided to inflict as much pain as is possible.  Although funding Sesame Street, the decision was made to cease funding cancer research at the National Institutes for Health.  Although it cost more to close the “open-air” memorials around Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, Arizona, Normandy, and South Dakota, among others, the Obama administration chose to assign Park Rangers to erect barricades to prevent us “commoners” from having access to the monuments.  Even private businesses and privately owned homes on leased federal land had access blocked.

We are still being fed the same old party line about how good the “Affordable” Care Act is.  If it’s so darn good, then why did Obama grant so many waivers on implementation (including unions, members (and their staffs) of the Congress, members of the Supreme Court, and members of the Obama administration, allowing them to opt out of Obamacare or receive a subsidy from the government (paid for by you and me)?  If Obamacare is good enough for us, why isn’t it good enough for them?  By the way, that is one of the sticking points the Democrats had with the House Republicans.  The House Republicans felt that, if Obamacare is good enough for us peons, it should be good enough for Congress.  The Democrats obviously do not feel that way.  The proposal to remove the Congressional exemption was removed by Senate Democrats.

What about the word “affordable” being used?  What is affordable about Obamacare?  There are plenty of horror stories of insurance premiums skyrocketing, along with horrendous co-pays or deductibles.  What about people being moved from full time employment to part time employment?  What about the promises we heard out of Obama’s mouth?  “If you like your current plan, you can keep it.  If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”  These promises were no more than more lies.

There is no need to go on further.  If this isn’t sufficient proof of the lies being spoken and perpetrated on the American people, then additional proof will not convince you.  If you haven’t heard about these things, then you are obviously getting all your news from ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or the Comedy Channel.  Otherwise, you need to move that rock and climb out from under it.  You might find out what is going on before it’s too late!

I have two solutions.  You are welcome to pick either, or, if you can come up with one that is better, please offer it.  First, the House Republicans could pass a bill funding the government, without funding Obamacare, and send it to the Senate.  The Senate doesn’t even have to read the bill.  All they have to do is use Nancy Pelosi’s advice:  “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it.”  My second solution, which may be better overall, is that a huge sinkhole open up under Washington, D.C. and swallow up the whole mess!  Take your pick.

No Religious Liberty for US Military?

A DISCLAIMER UP FRONT:  The odd spacing in this blog is not by my neglect or ignorance.  For some reason, "Blogger" will not save the spacing I have entered in this blog.  Thank you for understanding and for reading my blog.

       So that you will understand from whence my viewpoint is derived, let me give you a little personal background.  I enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1968.  After training, I was assigned to the U.S. Army Security Agency, a communications intelligence agency (similar in scope to the National Security Agency), earning the Meritorious Service Medal.  After a number of years as a member of the ASA, I was assigned to the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).  Later, I became a member of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command, earning two Army Achievement Medals, two Army Commendation Medals, one Meritorious Service Medal, the Gold Recruiter Badge, and the Army Recruiter Ring.  Also, I was assigned to an infantry division for a while.  Altogether, I served on active duty in the U.S. Army for a little over twenty years.

I am proud of my service, and I realize that my successes were by the grace of God.  He protected me through that twenty plus years and gave me favor with most of my superiors throughout that time.  When I first enlisted in the Army, I was a nominal Christian.  After about fourteen years active duty, I became a true, born-again Christian.  During my tenure as an Army Recruiter, I enlisted many young men and women into the Army.  Today, though I honor our military members, I would NOT recommend any Christian become a member of the Armed Forces of this country.  My reasons follow.

Shortly after I retired from active duty, under the direction of then-President Bill Clinton, the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy came into being, allowing openly gay and lesbian people to enlist in the military services.  Prior to this, simply answering on the application for enlistment that he/she had participated in any homosexual acts was an immediate disqualification.  Under President Barack Obama, this policy has been abolished.

It appears now, however, that the policy of “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” has been reinstated.  This time, though, it applies to Christians, especially evangelical Christians.  There was already an unofficial (I think) war being waged against Christians in the military, but lately it seems to have become official policy.  Some examples are listed below:

·         The Air Force censored a video created by a chaplain because it included the word “God.”  The Air Force feared the word might offend Muslims and atheists.

·         A service member received a “severe and possibly career-ending reprimand” for expressing his faith’s religious position about homosexuality in a personal religious blog.

·         An enlisted service member received a career-ending punishment for sending personal invitations to his promotion party which mentioned that he would be providing Chick-fil-A sandwiches due to his respect for the Defense of Marriage Act.

·         A senior military official at Fort Campbell sent out a lengthy email officially instructing officers to recognize “the religious right in America” as a “domestic hate group” akin to the KKK and Neo-Nazis because of its opposition to homosexual behavior.

·         A chaplain was relieved of his command over a military chapel because, consistent with DOMA’s (Defense of Marriage Act—a federal law) definition of marriage, he could not allow same-sex weddings to take place in the chapel.

·         An enlisted service member was threatened and denied promotion by a senior Non-Commissioned Officer for expressing–during a personal conversation–his religious belief in support of traditional marriage.

There are numerous other examples that could be listed, but these are certainly enough to show a pattern of anti-Christian sentiment existing in the U.S. military.  Last month Coast Guard Rear Admiral William Lee told a National Day of Prayer audience that religious liberty is being threatened by Pentagon lawyers, and service members are being told to hide their faith in Christ.  Now, to make matters worse, the Obama administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.  Among other items, the SAP includes as an objection to the bill:

Expansion and Implementation of Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members:  The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, “actions and speech” reflecting the “conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member.”  By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.  (Keep in mind that the administration doesn’t believe that allowing LGBT members to serve openly will have an adverse effect.)  The SAP includes a veto threat:  “…if the bill is presented to the President for approval in its current form, the President’s senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.”

In other words, President Obama indicates that he will veto any bill that forbids his appointees or officers from telling a soldier he cannot mention Jesus during prayer or have a Bible on his desk, or that keeps those appointees from telling a chaplain (who is an ordained clergyman) what religious teachings he can do in worship services, or what spiritual counseling he can give to another soldier.

It has been said that there are no atheists in the foxhole.  However, if we continue to tell God that we don’t want Him present in our lives, eventually He will not be present in the foxhole with our soldiers.  Neither will He keep His hand of protection on this nation.  God is long-suffering, extremely patient.  However, He is also a just God, and His patience is not never-ending.  At some point, our nation will have to suffer His judgment, if we continue telling Him to get out of our lives.  That point is not far away, either.  I am not so foolish as to speak for God.  Neither am I going to predict that date of His return.  Still, His word indicates that it is soon.  As a nation, we have thumbed our collective nose at Him entirely too much.  Do we really want God to remove His hand from us?  When He does, we are on our own.  Frankly, I much prefer God’s hand of protection on us.  That has served us well for over 200 years.

 

        Although the percentage of people in the United States who are truly “born-again” Christians has dwindled over the years, we still have a commission.  We can read it in 2 Chronicles 7:14:  “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”  It doesn’t take all the people; it takes only God’s people.  Let’s join together and obey 2 Chronicles 7:14.  Will you join me?

Boy Scouts of America

This is a time that I cannot decide if I am angry, disgusted, or sorely disappointed, or all three.  I guess it’s all three.  The decision the Boy Scouts of America, as an organization, made today is disgusting and extremely disappointing.  In case you haven’t heard, 61% of the 1,400 Scout leaders who met in Texas today, voted to remove the ban on allowing gays to be members of the Boy Scouts organization.  In its 100+ year history, the BSA has banned homosexuals and atheists from membership.

 I have a number of concerns, but I suppose the greatest are as follows:

 The Scout oath reads, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout law, to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.” 

Ø  How can he do his duty to God and be part of an organization that pretty much tells God to go fly a kite?

Ø   How can he keep himself morally straight, if he is going against God’s law?

 The Scout law referenced above is made up of twelve parts.  The twelfth law reads, “A Scout is Reverent.”  The explanation that the BSA provides is, “A Scout is reverent toward God.  He is faithful in his religious duties.  He respects the beliefs of others.” 

Ø  How can a Scout be reverent toward God, if he is thumbing his nose at God?

Also, the gay activists have already said that, though they are happy with the decision to lift the ban on gays, they still want the ban on gay Scout leaders lifted as well. 

Ø  How long will it be before the organization bows to more political pressure and lifts the ban on gay Scout leaders?

 

Galatians 6:7 reads:  Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 

I have no doubt that it is a matter of a very short time before the BSA is met with lawsuits from gay activists to force them to lift the ban on gay leaders.  At some time after that, the organization’s “leadership” will bow to the political pressure and the pressure of lawsuits and will lift the ban on gay leaders.

I am not concerned about the lawsuits.  The organization has sown, and they should expect to reap the fruits of their decision.  I am concerned that it is simply a matter of time before a boy is molested either by a fellow Scout or by a leader.  The result will be on the heads of those “leaders” who made this decision today, placing political expediency ahead of what is best for the Scouts and the organization.  They have allowed an immoral minority to ruin a fine organization.  Shame on them!  I would rather see the organization go down the drain that have one boy molested by an immoral leader or fellow Scout.

Did I Wake Up in the Old Soviet Union?

Someone please wake me!  I feel like I am either dreaming, or I went to sleep in the United States of America and woke up in the old Soviet Union.  Our Department of Justice seems to have turned into the KGB.  I can understand the Obama administration’s extreme dislike for Fox News Channel.  After all, Fox, which just happens to be the highest rated cable news network, is the only major news outlet that isn’t afraid to ask the hard questions of the Obama administration.

I do believe, however, that even the Obama administration has gone too far this time.  As if the apparent cover-up of the Benghazi fiasco and the IRS fiasco were not enough, now the Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, chose to violate the constitutional rights of James Rosen, a Fox News investigative reporter, who was investigating how the Obama administration was handling the nuclear situation in North Korea.  In an effort to determine which State Department employee(s) leaked information to Rosen, the Department of Justice obtained a warrant from the court to obtain James Rosen’s telephone records.  To do so, however, DOJ named Rosen as a co-conspirator in what they termed a case of espionage.

It is a shame that our Attorney General lacks knowledge of the law.  As a former holder of a TOP SECRET security clearance with access to special intelligence information, I thoroughly understand that the responsibility of safeguarding sensitive or classified information rests with the government employee possessing the information.  It is the responsibility and duty of the reporter to ask the questions.  If answering the questions would result in divulging sensitive or classified information, then the possessor of the information is bound by law not to release the information.  All he/she has to do is decline to answer the question, explaining that he/she is unable to answer because the information is classified.  It’s quite simple.

It appears to this writer that this is not truly a matter of an espionage investigation, at least not as far as James Rosen is concerned.  Instead, it appears that this is simply a heavy-handed, terribly clumsy attempt to intimidate Fox News and anyone else who dares to investigate the Obama administration.

The Obama administration in general, and the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service in specific, have gone way over the line this time.  It is past time that someone inform Mr. Obama and his cohorts that this is still the United States of America, still governed by the Constitution of the United States (not Chicago politics), and Mr. Obama and his administration need to abide by the law.  Mr. Obama is the President of the United States, not King (or dictator) of the United States!