LET’S GET THIS ONE POINT STRAIGHT: We have been
asked: “Why are you so anti-Obama?” The answer is that we are not
so much “anti” anything or anyone. We are, however, very strongly
“pro” some very important principles: we are pro-Christian . . . pro-
American and pro-Conservative. To the extent that Mr. Obama is
“anti” any one or all of those principles, it follows that we are definitely
“anti” his position or his viewpoint in that regard.
This week one of our readers sent us a message expressing concern
over the "duplicity and deceitfulness" in Mr. Obama's comments
at his recent "Prayer Breakfast" -- the one where, for some reason,
the list of attendees is not being released by the White House. Our
reader closed with these words: "Many Christian newspeople are
blinded by the Obama worship, and claim that revelations of it
are only President-bashing. They must see elements of mistrust
when a committed Muslim supports Faith based people. Please.
It will never end. But it must never win. We must love the people,
but debate the issues."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
AN ADVANCE ANNOUNCEMENT:
MAY 6 IS THE DATE OF THE NATIONAL
DAY OF PRAYER -- AN EVENT
AUTHORIZED BY LAW; WILL
THE PRESIDENT REJECT IT AS
HE DID LAST YEAR?
It has been announced that Franklin Graham, president of Samaritan's
Purse and Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, has been named
the Honorary Chairman for the National Day of Prayer, to be
observed on Thursday, May 6. This is in accordance with the 1988
law signed by President Reagan establishing the first Thursday in May
as the National Day of Prayer. President Truman had declared a
National Day of Prayer and signed it into law in 1952, but the exact
date was not established until 1988.
The theme of the 2010 observance is “Prayer for Such a Time as
This” and is based on Nahum 1:7: “The LORD is good, a refuge in
times of trouble. He cares for those who trust in Him.”
Last year in announcing that President Obama would not have any
observance of the National Day of Prayer in the White House, as past
presidents have done, the president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs,
said that Obama will pray privately as he does every day, and as
required by law would issue a National Day of Prayer proclamation.
Looking back into the history of a national day of prayer, on March
30, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation which
began with these words: “Whereas, the Senate of the United
States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just
Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of
nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to
designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.”
In Lincoln’s proclamation, God is mentioned five times and emphasizes
God’s dominion over the nation, the need for people to repent, and the
divine nature of the Bible. Obama’s proclamation mentioned God once –
“I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms
and blessings and to ask for God’s continued guidance, grace and
protection for this land that we love.” He also mentioned atheists,
and other non-believers, and said that we "live in a Nation where
people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the
dictates of their conscience.”
Bearing in mind Obama's repeated insistence that this is no longer a
Christian nation, one wonders how this year's proclamation, which he
is required by law to issue, will be worded.
For the record, Public Law 105-225, dated August 12, 1998, states:
"The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating
the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which
the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and
meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals." It isn't a
matter of choice -- it is a requirement of law.
And also for the record, last year, just a month later on June 29,
President Obama and his wife hosted a LGBT Pride (Lesbian, Gay,
Bi-sexual, Trans-sexual) observance at the White House, celebrating
the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riot in New York City, when
drag queen rioters attacked police at the Stonewall Inn, a gay, drag
queen bar. Obviously such a celebration took precedence over any
commitment by the president to the Judeo-Christian principles upon
which this nation was founded.
And here is our every week reminder: Election Day, 2010, will
be on Nov. 2 -- and is now just 202 days away. Remember: you
will be voting on every Representative in the Congress and about
one third of the Senators. Never forget the slogan: "In November,
we will remember!" This is going to be a great opportunity for
Christians to make our voices heard, and to reclaim this nation to
conformity with its basic founding principles.
Each week we provide examples of "What Others are Saying"
because they won't often be found in the "main line" media . . .
Matt Staver: "Christians in our nation today face unprecedented
threats to the free practice of our faith. As never before in the
history of our Republic, federal and state governments are
"putting the squeeze" on the consciences of believers and overtly
infringing upon our God-given liberties. Ultraliberal legislation,
oppressive regulatory policies, and adverse court rulings are all
creating pressure on the practice of our faith."
Ben Stein: "There are words for national leaders who attempt
to appease their enemies while at the same time shaming and
humiliating their friends. One of the kindest of the words is
"naive." This comes to mind because of President Obama's
recent overtures to the terrorist state of Iran, while shaming
Israel. In recent months and days, President Obama has, once
again, reached out a supplicating hand to The Islamic Republic
of Iran, only to be met by mockery, sarcasm, and rebuff. At the
same time, Mr. Obama has done all he could to humiliate
Benjamin Netanyahu, Premier of Israel, because Israel wants to
build 1600 apartments for its citizens in Jerusalem. This is in
Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Not a settlement. The capital of a
Wesley Pruden: "The president, who early on came to regard
himself as the prince with the voice that could make the earth
move, has never been able to resist the sound of his voice. He
likes question-and-answer sessions with carefully screened
constituents because it gives him jumping-off places for stump
oratory...This is not necessarily this president's fault. Brevity is
no longer a virtue in public discourse."
Dr. Geoffrey P. Hunt (in the American Thinker): "Barack Obama
is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since
Woodrow Wilson ... Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast.
And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and
most importantly, in forging connections with the American people."
Peter Heck (columnist in One News Now): "I find it appalling that
we can be living in the 21st century, living in a country whose
creed espouses the unalienable right to life for all people, living in
a nation that has spent over 200 years struggling to extend the
blessings of liberty to all men -- and yet there are still those who
are so backwards in their thinking and so void of moral
conscience that they can actually advocate a supposed right to
dismember infants in the womb. Scientifically, medically,
constitutionally, morally and ethically, the case for abortion rights
is so intellectually bankrupt it is a national embarrassment that
we take those who argue it seriously. Moreover, the fact that any
individual who espouses a right to kill children cannot only escape
the loony bin, but actually be elected to a position of authority in
our society is a devastating commentary on our people's
commitment to human rights."
In a "Breakpoint" commentary on the Obama nuclear program,
Chuck Colson's viewpoint included these thoughts, which take into
account basic Christian principles: "Astonishingly enough, the Nuclear
Posture Review specifically renounces a U.S. nuclear response to a
mass biological or chemical attack... The administration took this
position as a “carrot” approach to convince non-nuclear nations
to give up their dreams of obtaining nukes. But folks, you can offer
a rat a carrot, and he’ll eat it. The problem is, he remains a rat...
Any nuclear policy that fails to recognize the human propensity for
evil endangers the country and flies in the face of a biblical
worldview -- not to mention common sense... Reducing the number
of nuclear weapons? Yes. Fighting the spread of nuclear weapons?
Yes. But taking a credible deterrent off the table in a fallen world?
There is often a lot said in the few words of a "One Liner" . . .
Judi McLeod (Canada Free Press): "The white flag may be flying
over the White House, but it’s the Stars and Stripes everywhere else
Sean Hannity: "It would be nice -- or at least honest, if Barack
Obama would just come out and admit his socialism."
Gary Bauer: "The only foreign leaders sleeping well these days
are the enemies of the United States and Israel."
Adolf Hitler: "What luck for the rulers that men do not think."
Winston Churchill: "This report, by its very length, defends
itself against the risk of being read." (Could he have foreseen
our health care reform bill?)
Anthony G. Martin: "Were the present political scenario a
part of the story of Pinocchio ... The lies that have emanated
from Obama's mouth are enough to secure for him the
designation, 'Barack the Pinocchio President.'"
Some Random Afterthoughts ...
This lead-in to a major story on Obama's new nuclear policy
caught the attention of many Internet users last week: "There’s a
white flag flying over America this morning and it was run
up the flagpole by President Barack Obama without the
knowledge or permission of the American people." Addressing
that issue, Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post:
"Obama's new approach to nukes is fundamentally flawed.
Under the old doctrine, would-be aggressors faced the threat of
a cataclysmic nuclear response. Now, even if America is attacked
by bio-weapons, we can't use nukes unless the attacker failed to
comply with treaty obligations. The plan is 'morally bankrupt,'
'strategically loopy,' and 'quite insane.'" Dr. Krauthammer is right
when he speaks of the "deterrent" aspect of nuclear warfare. This
writer was present in the House of Commons of the British Parliament
on Mar. 1, 1955, when Winston Churchill delivered his last major
Parliamentary address, in which he set before the people of the world
the principle of deterrent through retaliation as the one great defense
against nuclear destruction. His words: "Unless a trustworthy and
universal agreement upon disarmament, conventional and nuclear
alike, can be reached and an effective system of inspection is
established and is actually working, there is only one sane policy
for the free world in the next few years. That is what we call
defense through deterrents." And that is the very effective control
that Mr. Obama has erased from American policy. But he is too young
to know or understand the international concerns when Mr. Churchill
spoke -- just 10 years after America's use of nuclear bombs on Japan
in 1945. We are told that he was born in 1961, 6 years after Churchill's
address. But, of course, we really don't know for sure when or where
he was born.
Hillary has done it again: Tariq Ramadan, an extremist Muslim
who supports Islamic terrorism to the extent that he has been banned
from this country for the past 6 years, is now back here, under an
order signed by our Secretary of State, permitting him to undertake a
US tour that includes New Jersey, Chicago, Detroit and Washington.
He is a radical Islamic scholar who openly supports the Palestine
terrorist group, Hamas, and other terrorist causes, and has worked
for Iran. We are supposed to take comfort in the fact that we have
Mrs. Clinton out there on our international front line of defense.
The nation-wide polls offer signs of hope for America: This is
interesting -- in spite of all the efforts by Obama, the Democrat
leadership and their controlled main-line media to make the people
believe that Conservatives and the Tea Party adherents are radicals
or even racists, the latest Rasmussen poll discloses that more American
voters feel that the views of members of the Tea Party movement are
closer to their views than are those of Mr. Obama -- by a margin of
48% to 44%. And a new CBS News poll shows that Obama's
approval rating has fallen by 5% since he signed his health care reform
plan into law. The poll shows he has reached a new low in public
approval at 44%, while a similar poll from Rasmussen puts his public
approval at 46%. His approval rating in the CBS poll has fallen 24%
since his high in April, 2009.
And what to do about Obamacare? There are three options open
to those who are serious about opposing this health care reform law:
(1) Seek to have it declared unconstitutional through legal action in
the courts -- doubtless winding up in the Supreme Court. Toward
this end, many state Attorneys General and other legal action
organizations have filed suits. (2) Seek to repeal it through action
in the Congress. Of American voters, a new Rasmussen poll finds
that 58% favor repeal with 38% against such action. (3) Seek to
have it annulled under the terms of the Tenth Amendment: "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." In our opinion, of those three
options, the last one seems to be the most logical. In 1798, Thomas
Jefferson said of this amendment that he considered it to be "the
foundation of the Constitution," and added: "To take a single
step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the
powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field
of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
Writing on this subject in the Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Shane Musgrove summarized it well: "Are there problems with
our health care system? Yes, absolutely. Did the majority of
people believe this was the answer? The answer: simply no.
Argue with the data, not me ... Therefore, the trust in our federal
government dwindles and again the approval rating of the
Congress drops even lower... They cannot run a Social Security
program, the US Postal Service, Medicaid, Medicare, Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, yet they can run a health care system? ...
Wherever you stand on the aisles of politics, common logic
should say you cannot spend what you do not have no matter
how good you think it might be."
Sometimes, even the most modern teleprompters err: In his
so often cited State of the Union speech, the president said, "We
find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise
enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created
equal." Here he equated a "promise" with a "notion" -- an erroneous
comparison in itself -- but beyond that, our Founding Fathers declared
those to be our "unalienable rights," and "rights" are a long way from a
"notion." He was also confused as to which of our nation's founding
documents he was quoting. It wasn't the Constitution -- it was the
Declaration of Independence which said, "We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
When you rely so completely on a teleprompter, it is difficult to keep
your facts straight, although it is probable that most American public
school students would know the difference.
In a day when our Constitution appears to mean less and less,
It is interesting to recall what our founding fathers thought about the
governing document for the nation they had created:
"It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the Delegates
from so many different States ... should unite in forming a system
of national Government, so little liable to well founded objections."
--George Washington, 1788
"The deliberate union of so great and various a people in such a
place, is without all partiality or prejudice, if not the greatest
exertion of human understanding, the greatest single effort of
national deliberation that the world has ever seen."
--John Adams, 1788
"The constitution, which was the result of our deliberation, is
unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1789
"Whatever may be the judgment pronounced on the competency
of the architects of the Constitution, or whatever may be the
destiny of the edifice prepared by them, I feel it a duty to express
my profound and solemn conviction ... that there never was an
assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous trust, who
were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously
devoted to the object committed to them."
--James Madison, 1822
Then, of course, there is the present day opinion of Illinois Democrat
Congressman Phil Hare: "I don't worry about the Constitution on
this ... What I care more about, I care more about the people
dying every day that don't have health care." Reminds one of the
quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool some of the
people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but
you can not fool all of the people all of the time."