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.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
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!
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!
Saturday, January 30, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
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…
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…
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
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!”
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!”
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
