Justice or Vengeance?

Race-baiter “Reverend” Al Sharpton can call himself “Reverend” all he wants.  However, I remember hearing Dr. Billy Graham state that he preferred not to be referred to as “Reverend,” as he did not feel worthy of such a title.  Sharpton certainly has no problem calling himself “Reverend.”  Of course, he comes nowhere close to the stature of a Billy Graham.  He has been calling for “justice” in Ferguson when what he really wants is vengeance.  He has chosen to ignore Romans 12:19, which reads Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.  If Officer Darren Wilson was wrong in his actions, Almighty God will cause him to suffer the consequences.  It is not up to Al Sharpton or the trouble-makers in Ferguson to do what God said that He will do.

The behavior of Sharpton, especially in the wake of the grand jury decision in Ferguson, MO tends to be more closely aligned with that of a false prophet/teacher than that of a “reverend.”  2 Peter 2:1-3 reads, But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.  ²Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; ³and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.  Under the guise of “preaching” God’s word, he introduces destructive heresies, and many will follow this sensuality.  Without a doubt, Sharpton and his ilk are maligning the truth.

Galatians 5:19-21 reads, ¹⁹Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, ²⁰idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, ²¹envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  Not only is Sharpton (as well as some of the so-called “pastors” in and around Ferguson) causing enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger (e.g. the rioting and looting), disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, carousing, and things like these, he is leading others to do the same.  It would be bad enough that Sharpton is condemning his own soul, but he is leading others, those who are ignorant of the scriptures, to do the same.

Romans 16:17-18 reads, ¹⁷Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.  ¹⁸For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.  Mr. Sharpton is causing dissensions throughout Ferguson, MO and other cities throughout the country.  The best thing people can do for themselves is to run away from Al Sharpton and his ilk, just as fast as their feet will carry them.  Otherwise, they will be sucked up into the morass that Sharpton and his ilk are leading the uninformed and scripturally ignorant.

After running away from these charlatans, the next thing the people of Ferguson need to do is follow 1 Timothy 2:8, which reads, ⁸Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

Hamas-a Humanitarian Organization?

Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives and current House Minority Leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, in a television interview, "The Qataris tell me that Hamas is a humanitarian organization."

Oh, really?  Is that why they possess thousands of rockets, 3,000 of which they have fired into Israel?  I wonder if other "humanitarian" organizations possess rockets.  I wonder if any of them have fired rockets into another country.  Ms. Pelosi needs to pay attention to Proverbs 17:28, which reads, "Even fools seem smart when they are quiet."  Attributed to Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain is a saying which is similar:  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

Ms. Pelosi has removed all doubt.

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!

Contempt Vote on Attorney General Holder

When the House of Representatives held the vote on whether or not to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress, most of the Democrats chose to take the low road.  Instead of coming down on the side of integrity and demanding that Mr. Holder cooperate with the House Oversight Committee, they chose to play the race card.  Nancy Pelosi declared that it was all about denying minorities their right to vote.  Her comment indicates that either Ms. Pelosi is either an idiot, or she is so far out of touch with reality, she ought not to be in the Congress.

When the 108 or so Democrats decided to “take their marbles and go home”, because they couldn’t control the proceedings, they demonstrated just how immature they really are.  As Herman Cain said, “They acted like spoiled children.”  He nailed their behavior as accurately as anyone has.

It is a shame that, of the 193 Democrats in the House of Representatives, only seventeen possess the integrity to demand that Mr. Holder abide by the law and provide the information necessary for the House Oversight Committee to investigate what took place in the Fast and Furious operation that resulted in the deaths of Agent Brian Terry and untold numbers of Mexican citizens.

When the Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi say that the Republicans are on a witch hunt and should be concentrating on jobs, they choose to ignore a number of facts.  They ignore the fact that the Republican-led House has already sent some thirty jobs bills to the Senate for action that are languishing in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) chooses not to bring them to the floor.  They ignore the fact that Mr. Holder has been stone-walling the Oversight Committee for approximately eighteen months.  Most of all, they ignore the fact than an American Border Patrol Agent and a number of innocent Mexican citizens paid for the botched operation with their lives.

To Ms. Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues, I say, “Shame on you.  You are failing to do your duty, the duty to which you were elected, the duty which you swore an oath to fulfill!  Shame on you!”

It's the Fault of the Congress

President Obama, when he is not blaming former President George W. Bush for the problems in America, tends to blame Congress. At first, I thought it a bit curious that he would blame Congress, since his party, the Democrats, control one house of Congress—the Senate. Then it dawned on me. Most people, primarily due to lack of knowledge, believe that the Congress is controlled by the Republicans. Others believe that the House of Representatives, under control of the Republicans, is the Congress.

Folks, if you took Civics or Social Studies, depending on what it was called when you took it, you should remember, the Congress is made up of two houses—the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House members serve two-year terms. The Senate members serve six-year terms. The Speaker of the House, Representative John Boehner, is a Republican, and the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid, is a Democrat. Mr. Boehner, as Speaker of the house, runs the House. His predecessor, in control of the House from 2006 until 2010, was Representative Nancy Pelosi, from California (San Francisco area), a very liberal Democrat. Senator Reid, as Majority Leader of the Senate, runs the Senate, and the Democrats control the Senate.

Mr. Obama would like for us all to believe that the Congress (House and Senate) has stopped all of the things he has tried to do to cause the economy to improve. For his first two years as President, his party, the Democrats, controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Remember, they shoved Obamacare down our throats. They were able to do so, because the Republicans did not have enough people in either house of Congress to stop it.

The Republican Party, in control of the House of Representatives, has passed over twenty bills aimed at enabling American industry to create jobs. Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT), as Majority Leader of the Senate, has refused to bring a single one of them to the floor for a vote. The SENATE (read Democrats and Harry Reid) has blocked everything the Republicans in the House of Representatives have tried to do. If either Mr. Obama or Mr. Reid were serious about creating real jobs, they would bring these bills to the floor for an up or down vote.

Since the Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in 2006, they have failed to pass a federal budget, instead voting in “stop-gap” measures to keep the government running. Mr. Obama has not submitted a serious budget to the Congress (the House of Representatives and Senate) since he took office over three years ago. What he has submitted, Mr. Reid and the Democrats defeated in the Senate.

If you want to blame anybody for the ills of the American economy, and you don’t want to blame Mr. Obama, then you need to blame Senator Reid and the Democrats in the Senate. That is where the bottle neck is located (once you get past the bottle neck in the White House). They can ram through Obamacare, and they can take time to file lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina to overturn their immigration laws. They can take the time to block South Carolina’s attempt to inject some integrity into our elections by requiring a photo I.D. to vote. Mr. Obama can find the time to take nineteen vacations in three years (at enormous taxpayer expense), but Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the Senate can’t seem to find time to pass a budget. It seems to this writer that the problem resides in the White House and the Senate. I would say it’s time to clean house in both houses—the Senate and the White House! Unfortunately, as long as our government robs Peter to pay Paul, they will always have Paul’s vote. When Paul outnumbers Peter, we will go down the drain.

It's Still Horse Manure!

As he has done in the past, President Obama is playing Christians (especially Catholics) for fools. He’s betting that we are fools or, at least, extremely naïve, and will believe that his “compromise” on the Obamacare requirement for employers to provide, through their healthcare policies, birth control, including the “morning after” pill, and abortion. It’s nothing more than an accounting gimmick. Anyone who buys it is either naïve or a fool. You can call a pile of horse manure a rose, but it still stinks.

This is all sold under the guise of “healthcare” for women. Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House of Representatives (praise the Lord it’s former), in her usual two-faced support of the President, said, that Republicans want “to use the excuse of religious freedom” to take an action that will harm women's health (emphasis added). In the first place, it has nothing to do with “women’s health”. In the second place, she ignores the fact that a large part of the female population of the United States is Republican. Nobody in their right mind would want to “harm women’s health”. As far as using “the excuse of religious freedom” is concerned, it’s not an excuse when we are talking about the exercise of religious freedom. It’s in the constitution! It’s called the 1st Amendment! Read it, Ms. Pelosi. You just might learn something!

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Iman Rauf, the Iman at the center of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque controversy continued his harmful rhetoric this morning. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), he lamented over the use of, in his words, “deliberate misinformation and harmful stereotypes” in the argument over the building of the mosque within a short distance of Ground Zero in Manhattan. There is an old saying that this is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I believe it truly applies here.

If misinformation and harmful stereotypes are being used, and they are, it seems to me that most, if not all, of this usage is by the Imam and his supporters. I have not heard any critic of the building of the mosque near Ground Zero say that the Imam and his supporters do not have the right to build there. Quite the contrary, critics go out of their way to state that they do have that right. Their argument is that it is the wrong thing to do, given the seriousness and semi-sanctity of the site of the former World Trade Center.

The Imam and his supporters continually state that the critics are trying to deny them their constitutional right to build a worship center. No one has made any attempt to do so. Misinformation is the word used, but lie is actually more accurate. The Imam and his supporters are lying when they use this smoke screen to disguise their true intent.

The use of harmful stereotypes again is coming from the Imam and his supporters. The 60-70% of the American people who oppose the placement of the mosque at the Ground Zero location are not radicals. They are very much mainstream Americans. They appreciate the constitutional right to build in the disputed location and support it. Their objection is the wisdom of building there. The Imam seems to be utilizing one of the primary tools of today’s Democrat party. The Democrat party has mastered the use of name-calling to deflect criticism of President Obama and his supporters, and now the Imam and supporters are doing the very same thing. It seems that as soon as one offers criticism of these people the critics are labeled as radicals.

The Imam’s veiled threat of violence, if the mosque location changes, is certainly no way to build bridges. So far, the Imam’s actions and rhetoric are destroying any bridges that have already been built between Muslims and other Americans. Based on Imam Rauf’s mention of violence if the mosque location is changed, it seems to me that the radicals are on his side, not the side of the critics. I have not heard of any threats of violence from any of the critics if the mosque is built near Ground Zero. The pot is indeed calling the kettle black.

What’s Wrong With Restoring Honor to America?

This past Saturday, August 28, Glenn Beck held the Restore Honor to America rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Much of the liberal news media chose to ignore the facts. An example is one outlet that reported that Glenn Beck stood at “the very place” where Dr. Martin Luther King made his famous I Have a Dream speech. Actually, Glenn Beck stood a number of steps below where Dr. King spoke. In fact, Beck deliberately chose to stand below the place where Dr. King spoke, displaying the respect for Dr. King that he had already voiced. Misreporting by the liberal media is nothing new, and most people should expect it to happen by now.

Unfortunately, the Reverend Al Sharpton is following right along with the liberal news media, again not really a surprise. Still, when Mr. Sharpton chooses to misrepresent the rally, my concern moves from “Does Mr. Sharpton know the word of God?” to “Does Mr. Sharpton know the God of the word?” I’ll explain my statement below.

One of Mr. Beck’s remarks was quite simple. He said, “We must get the poison of hatred out of us.” Yet, Mr. Sharpton remarked, “They want to disgrace this day. This is our day, and we and we ain’t givin’ it away.” When Bill O’Reilly questioned Mr. Sharpton on his statement, O’Reilly said, “It sounds like Beck is talking about racial harmony,” Sharpton replied, “He (Glenn Beck) wants to make this a theocracy.” He apparently bases this statement on Beck’s call to restore America to Judeo-Christian principles. At no time did Mr. Beck call for a theocracy.

Simply abiding by those principles is a far cry from a theocracy. If, as a nation, we were abiding by those principles, this nation would be in much better shape than it is now. (By the way, Mr. Sharpton, if you truly believe and understand the word of God and know the God of the word, then you know that, soon and very soon, believers of Jesus Christ will be living in a theocracy, one in which the head is a King—Jesus Himself!)

My question for Reverend Sharpton is simple. Just how does a rally to restore honor to America disgrace the anniversary of Dr. King’s speech? I remember Dr. King, and I remember what he said in many of his speeches. I believe he would have been delighted to hear the things Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and his niece said during the rally. The Restore Honor to America rally stood for many of the same things that Dr. King stood for and preached. Shame on Reverend Sharpton for deliberately mischaracterizing the rally and its principles! If anyone disgraced the anniversary of Dr. King's speech, it seems to me that it was Reverend Sharpton.

The reason I made the statement about Reverend Sharpton in my second paragraph is because the God of the word said (in Matthew 5), “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Mr. Sharpton is hardly a peacemaker. He is much more a rabble-rouser than a peacemaker.

The God of the word also said (in the same chapter), “But let your statement be, ’Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no’; and anything beyond these is of evil (or from the evil one).” In other words, speak your words in such a way that you don’t need to swear an oath, because whatever you speak shall be taken as truth, because your word is always true. In my opinion, Mr. Sharpton has demonstrated that you cannot always take his yes as a yes nor take his no as a no.

Vote for Sale!

Bart Stupak, who claims to represent Michigan’s 1st Congressional District, is either stupid or a liar. If he truly believes that an executive order by the President overrides a law that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President, then he is stupid and has no business serving in the Congress. If he does indeed know that the President’s executive order will not override law, then he is a liar by saying that the President’s order will prevent federal funds being used for abortion.

The total truth, I believe, is that Mr. Stupak sold his vote to President Obama. I believe that it is more than just a coincidence that some $700,000 in federal funds has suddenly found its way into Stupak’s district for an airport.

Mr. Stupak has demonstrated vividly the lack of integrity among the Democrat party throughout the political spectrum of the United States. Although elected to represent the voters, the Democrat party has chosen to use its majority in both houses of Congress to force its left-wing liberal agenda down the throats of the American people. May they face the wrath of the American people this coming November!

Where Does the Buck Stop?

At what point in his term as President of the United States, does Mr. Obama live up to the phrase, “The buck stops here,” and quit blaming everything on George W. Bush? Mr. President, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Just be sure and take Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid with you. Don't forget Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod, please!

Mr. Obama ran as if he were the savior of the world. Now, anyone with even a modicum of intelligence knew he wasn’t, but he wanted us to believe that he was. Well, if you want the position, Mr. Obama, then save the world.

George W. Bush, like any President, had his shortcomings. He inherited problems from President Clinton, the same as any new President does. Yet, I never heard President Bush blame those problems (or any others) on his predecessor. He didn't even blame the 9/11 attacks on Mr. Clinton, though he could have made a case for it. It’s a shame Mr. Bush’s successor doesn’t have the same integrity.

When Mr. Obama was inaugurated, I told my wife, “I hope he is such a good president, that I want to rush to the polls in November 2012 to vote for him. At the rate he is going, though, I’ll rush to the polls in 2012, but it won’t be to vote for him. I would have a lot more respect for him as a man, regardless of his policies, if he had the courage and integrity not to blame his predecessor and simply accept the responsibility he said he wanted, when he decided to run for President.

Do We Still Have Government of the People, By the People, and For the People?

Most of our elected representatives around the nation seem to have forgotten that we are supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. They seem to believe that our government is responsible only for responding to the special interests and the interests of their respective political parties. According to the constitution of the United States, our government is responsible only for providing for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.

Article I, Section VIII outlines the powers granted to Congress, and Article II, Section II outlines the powers granted to the President. In neither place, does the Constitution grant the power to our government to run roughshod over us. Nowhere does the Constitution grant to our government the power to force down our collective throat a healthcare plan which allows the government to control our very healthcare decisions. Some of the decisions may very well determine whether we live or die.

Nowhere in those articles will you find the granting of power to any branch of our government to decide that a politically correct agenda of going green should control how we drive to work, to the grocery store, or church or synagogue, or other place of worship. Nowhere in our Constitution does it grant to our government the right to use Al Gore’s junk science of climate change to force us to change our way of living.

Instead of simply deciding what they think is best for us, it is time our government listen to us, we the people. Instead of comparing our government to the governments of Europe, we should remember the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said, in 1787, that a comparison of our government with the governments of Europe “is like a comparison of heaven and hell.”

Based on the behavior of most of the Democrat members of Congress who have held town hall meetings, I believe they fear and distrust the people who dare to question their “judgment”. Well, let’s look again at Thomas Jefferson who said in 1824, “Men…are naturally divided into two parties. Those who fear and distrust the people… Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe…depository of the public interest.” In 1787, Jefferson stated, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers…alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.”

On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton seemed to subscribe to the attitude of so many members of the liberal wing of today’s Democrat party. He said in 1787, “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” He went on to say, “Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrolling disposition requires checks. Take mankind in general, they are vicious—their passions may be operated upon… Take mankind as they are, and what are they governed by? Their passions.” In 1783, Hamilton said, “I have an indifferent (low) opinion of the honesty of this country, and ill forebodings as to its future system.”

When our government assumes it has the right to assume power to do whatever it deems possible, it should again learn what Thomas Jefferson said on February 17, 1791. He said, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground—that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.” In 1787, Jefferson had stated, “I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. It places the governors (those doing the governing) indeed more at their ease, at the expense of the people.”

My fellow citizens, this is not the way to govern in a democratic republic such as the United States. The way our government has chosen to govern is more akin to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) than it is to anything our founding fathers ever envisioned! Ask your Senator or Representative if he or she believes that our government should govern strictly according to our Constitution. If the answer is anything other than a resounding, “Yes!” then you need to replace that person in the next election.

Blessings…

Torture? Give Me a Break!

Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary defines torture (as a noun) as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure. As a verb, it defines torture as: to punish or coerce by inflicting excruciating pain, to cause intense suffering, to twist or wrench out of shape.
Bleeding heart liberals like Nancy Pelosi (who needs either gingko biloba for her memory or a truth serum), Harry Reed, and their ilk who complain about waterboarding terrorists as torture need to get a life, learn how to read, or explain to the terrorists’ victims how terrorists should have more rights than their victims.

If you can look me in the eye and tell me that, even if you knew a terrorist possessed the details of an impending terrorist attack that would directly affect your child, you would absolutely refuse to waterboard that terrorist when all other methods have failed, I praise God that I am not your son!

In the first place, waterboarding does not come anywhere close to definition of torture. In the second place, folks, wake up! We are not living in the land of Oz. The terrorists, with whom we deal, have but one goal in mind—kill as many Americans as possible, and they do not care what they have to do to accomplish that goal. Normal methods of interrogation do not work on people who operate on ideology. Waterboarding plays tricks on the mind, but does not inflict pain or injury. So get over it, and allow the experts to do their job of protecting us. If you don’t, you’ll soon be singing a different tune, because they will attack us again. As former Secretary of State Rice said, “They have to get lucky only once!”

President Pelosi?

In his first two months as President, Mr. Obama, the man who campaigned as a man of the people, a man who would listen to the people, has so far seemed to have listened only to Nancy Pelosi. In fact, from what this writer has observed, Mr. Obama has spent most of the last two months campaigning while Nancy Pelosi has been making the decisions on how to run the country.

The people of San Francisco elected Nancy Pelosi to represent them in Congress. The liberal left of the Democrat party in the House of Representatives elected her Speaker of the House. Nowhere is there a record of her being elected President of the United States. It is time for Mr. Obama to stop campaigning and start governing, and it’s time for Nancy Pelosi to cease being the de-facto President.

Mr. President, you are a smart man, but if you continue listening to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and her Senate counterpart Harry Reid, you are acting quite foolishly. Their interest is not in what is best for the nation, but in what is best for them and the Democrat party.

Hope and Change?

When he was running for President of the United States, then Senator Barack Obama's theme was Change We Can Believe In. He promised us change and hope. People became so wrapped up in his promise of change and hope, they seemed almost to worship him as he appeared on the stage.

He promised us that we would no longer have lobbyists serving in the White House. Well, he has lobbyists serving on his staff.

He promised us what he described as an ethical administration. He has nominated a number of people with ethical problems to become cabinet secretaries, people who had chosen not to pay their taxes (until nominated), people with questionable associations.

He promised us an administration that focused on the future rather than dwelling on the past. He has consistently blamed all the ills of the nation on the previous administration (as if the Democrat-controlled Congress had nothing to do with them).

He promised us no earmarks (pork) in legislation. Both his so-called Stimulus bill and the latest spending bill are so full of pork, we should have a national barbecue.

He promised us fiscal responsibility. He has doubled the national debt. In less than two months, he has, with the help of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (and three liberal Republicans), authorized (or soon will) more spending than every President since the founding of the United States combined.

Instead of having a third term of George Bush, as he and his fellow Democrats hammered into everyone during the campaign, he has given us the second term of Jimmy Carter. By the time President Obama finishes his first term, Jimmy Carter's economic disaster of 18% inflation will seem mild by comparison.

I now know what the hope and change are: We hope for a change in the make up of the Congress and the Presidency as soon as possible. Of course, as long as President Obama operates with the policy of rob Peter to pay Paul, he can be sure than he has the support of Paul. I just wonder how long it will be before we have to pay $12.00 for a gallon of gas and $10.00 for a loaf of bread. Maybe then, even Paul will be ready for change. Lets hope for a change soon--either in policy or people!

Abortion--Good For the Economy?

In the years that have passed just since the “legalization” of abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court in the infamous Roe v. Wade Decision, proponents of abortion have offered numerous arguments supporting abortion. Some arguments are at least worthy of discussion, i.e. abortion when the life of the mother is in danger. This week, though, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, offered the most specious of all arguments, even more specious than a right to privacy.

Personally, I cannot remember when I have ever agreed with Ms. Pelosi on anything, but my disagreement with her has never been as vehement as it is today. Even with the inane comments she has made in the past, I found it difficult to believe that even she could dream up such an argument for abortion!

To say that abortion helps the nation’s economy is, at best, a specious argument. Preventing the birth of a child as a means of controlling government spending is only one step away from genocide. What’s next—the argument that retirement pensions, Social Security, and Medicare are such a drain on the economy that we need to deny medical care and retirement income to senior citizens? When does someone like Pelosi say that $80,000 is too much to save the life of an eighty-year old senior citizen who has suffered a heart attack? Folks, it’s coming. Mark my words.

New President Obama

I just finished watching the inauguration of President Obama. Although I did not vote for him, I now have an obligation to pray for him, as do all Christians. I pray that our Lord will give him wisdom and direction in all that he does. I pray that our Lord protect him and his family. May Almighty God direct his every step so that he will govern in a Godly manner.

May President Obama always seek God's face and His direction. May he surround himself with wise men and women whose primary interest is what is best for our nation. May President Obama remember that God is the only true source of wisdom. I pray that he will learn quickly to rely on God not on man.

Please, folks, pray for President Obama. This is a dangerous time, and he needs our prayers! May God bless and protect him and his family.