Tuesday
THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL ACTIONS ON US
`
THIS WEEK'S "EDITORIAL COMMENT" . . . With all the
actions the Obama administration has taken, which are contrary
to the opinions and views of the majority of the American people,
there have come, quite naturally (because that old document that
those in power seem to ignore, stated that our government should
derive its powers "from the consent of the governed"), calls for
"repeal" of one new Obama law after another. This is not to imply
that we disagree with the "repeal" concept, but first we have to
face facts. Right now -- with his complete control of both houses
of the Congress through the Democrat majority -- there is no hope
of "repeal" or of doing anything to reflect the opinions and views
of the American people. The only hope we have of reverting to
Abraham Lincoln's dream of this nation as being "of the people,
by the people, and for the people," is to go to the polls on
Election Day, November 2, 2010 and vote the left-wing Liberals
presently in control of the Congress out of office, and elect
members who will put America first, and achieve what Lincoln
called for at Gettysburg, "that this nation, under God, shall have
a new birth of freedom." That is all we can do. That is what we
absolutely must do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
POLITICAL CONCERNS AREN'T THE ONLY ONES
WE FACE -- IT IS THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL
ACTIONS ON US AS CHRISTIANS THAT
WE REALLY MUST ADDRESS
The elite, main-line media -- press, TV, news magazines and
even some Internet sites (yes, the Liberals are active there, too!)
-- carry so many non-essential articles that the really significant
information gets hidden among all the political propaganda
pieces. So if we don't comment on some issues which have made
headlines elsewhere, it is because they do not have any meaningful
effect on the freedom of religion (not "freedom of worship" as
expressed in the Obama administration's "politically correct"
terminology). Thus, we will not be commenting on the Chelsea
Clinton wedding, or on the once-off, but now on-again wedding
between Bristol Palin and Levi Johnson. Nor will we comment
on Mel Gibson and his family problems or on former Illinois
Governor Blagojevich's trial. . . or even on the NAACP playing
the race card against the TEA Party groups.
And we will not be commenting on the Gulf oil spill -- we simply
can't keep up with the developments there after 3 disastrous
months. One thing we have noted -- after making it very clear that
he considered the whole thing to be BP's fault and therefore their
sole responsibility, now Mr. Obama has made the apparently
successful capping of the well his own achievement, and in his
announcement of it on TV used the word "we" again and again . . .
only mentioning BP at the end when he once again assigned to BP
responsibility for payment of the clean-up and all related costs.
The fact that the method for capping, the equipment used and the
actual work of installing the cap was purely a BP operation
seemed to escape him, and his "We" took over.
There is this to be said about the Gulf oil spill -- it has brought
out into the open a sharp division in national public opinion as
to how the Obama administration handled the disaster. A new
Washington Post-ABC News poll reports that among Gulf coast
residents 72% disapprove of the way the administration has
handled it, with only 24% approving. By contrast, 62% of those
local residents approved of the way the various local and state
governments have responded to the disaster.
But enough about the issues we are not going to discuss -- and
before we get into the issues for today's discussions, there is this
word about the responsibility we face on Election Day -- now
just 104 days away. We can easily be lulled into a false sense of
security or complacency by reading the polls which predict
Democrat losses in both houses of the Congress. But opinion polls
don't vote. People do, and until the American people vote on
election day, we are not going to see anything change in Washington
or in our state governments.
Before you get all smug and relaxed over the sarcastic article
one of your friends just sent you, pointing out how Barack Obama
was another Jimmy Carter, inept and incapable of dominating the
Washington scene, pause to remember how he and his Congress
(both houses of it) rammed through a stimulus spending bill that
plunged us into debt going beyond anyone's understanding . . . did
the same with a health reform bill that the majority didn't want,
and now wants its repeal . . . and now a financial reform bill
which has, at best, mixed reviews . . . and those three massive
victories were accomplished in less than two years by a president
who didn't know how to manage things in Washington.
But he didn't do it alone . . . he had the irresistible support of both
houses of Congress, firmly controlled by the Liberals . . . to such
an extent that Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, was able to say
about the health care reform bill which no one had read: "We have
to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it." Until we -- the
American voters -- do something to change the make-up of the
Congress, Mr. Obama will continue to ride roughshod over the
views, opinions and wishes of the American people.
But we can do something about it! On November 2, now just 104
days from today, we can vote the Liberals out, and vote the
Conservatives into office. By so doing, by gaining even the
narrowest majority in the House and in the Senate, we could take
control of the Congressional Committees which dictate which
measures will ever come to the floor for debate and vote. Those
committees now are all under Democrat/Liberal domination,
guaranteeing Mr. Obama success in enacting whatever laws he
has on his agenda, and denying the American people the ability to
exercise their right to be heard. But we can change all that by our
vote on November 2.
And between today and Election Day, let's make every day a day
of prayer for our nation and its leaders, that they might fulfill the
words of Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address, by
acting "with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right."
And now consider a few of our major issues of concern. In last
week's commentary we presented two major issues which carry
serious concern for American Christians. First, there was the
Obama administration's change of terminology from "freedom of
religion" to "freedom of worship." It began in November of last
year as the president spoke in memory of the Americans murdered
at Fort Hood, Texas, by a Muslim serving as an officer in the U.S.
military. From that time it has become the replacement term for
"freedom of religion" in speeches by Mr. Obama and his present
Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The underlying intention
would be to take away our religious freedom -- to assemble, to
preach openly, to evangelize, to make our faith known in public.
"Freedom of worship" would limit us to private acts of prayer
and Bible study. The implications in this change to "politically
correct" language is seriously troubling.
Second, we discussed the effort led by former British Prime
Minister, Tony Blair, to establish a "one world" religion -- and
this is of serious concern because it is well funded, and has the
support of prominent political figures like Bill Clinton, and the
religious support of nominal "Evangelicals." It merges smoothly
into the growing concept of a "one world" government which
seems to pervade much of the thinking and planning of the UN.
Third, although he claims at times to be a Christian, at the same
time Mr. Obama openly declares that he is a Muslim, and that his
family in Africa is also Muslim. But his views of salvation stand
in sharp contrast to Christian beliefs, and reflect more accurately
the atheistic Communist view. In commencement addresses at
Wesleyan University, Northwestern University, University of
Chicago School of Medicine and Southern New Hampshire
University (to name just a few), he has used the same language:
"...you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual
salvation depends on collective salvation." And speaking
personally, he said that he recognizes that "my individual salvation
is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the
country." Included in the basic teaching of atheistic Communism --
Marxism -- is the concept of collective salvation. This is in direct
contradiction to Biblical Christianity by teaching that sin is not
individual, but is collective and a person is saved not by his
individual belief, but by social action. This was the point so
clearly made by Billy Graham during his most influential
preaching in the mid-twentieth century when he taught that the
Christian faith changes a person, and the individual changes his
society, whereas Communism teaches that it changes society, and
society changes the individual. ("Collective salvation.") But we
should not be surprised; Mr. Obama has said again and again that
America is not a Christian nation.
Fourth, we have to be concerned over Mr. Obama's catering to
the LGBT community by pledging to repeal the federal Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA), by granting all sorts of benefits to
same-sex unions, by enacting hate crime laws, by moving against
our military leaders in advocating repeal of the "Don't ask, don't
tell" policy, and by constantly assuring LGBT advocates that he
is on their side and is working for them. Not only is our traditional
Christian morality under attack, but the end of our First
Amendment right of freedom of religion is in sight.
Fifth, the Liberal support of abortion, under the familiar mantra
"Freedom of Choice" continues, even though in the 37 years since
Roe v. Wade, more than 50 million babies have been killed, and
now -- despite the president's word to the contrary -- under
Obamacare, federal funds will apparently be paying for abortions.
And those are just a few of the concerns we, as Christians, share
with items on the Obama agenda.
Now here are a few examples of "What Others Are Saying."
Dr. Michel Youssef ("Leading the Way"): "Before God fully
removes His protection and blessings from this nation, we must
repent of our apathy regarding the state of this union. We must
no longer be content with what politicians tell us is the fate of
our country, but rather we must unite in prayer to bring back
the Biblically based ideals which founded this nation."
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson (President BOND): "The NAACP is
a racist and bigoted group. And shame on Michelle Obama for
embracing their racist platform. Instead of condemning this
hateful resolution and rebuking the organization, she
encouraged them to 'increase their intensity.' This is pure
wickedness."
Victor Davis Hanson (New York Post): "In just 18 months
Holder has proven to be the most political attorney general since
Richard Nixon's attorney general, John Mitchell. Like the
hyperpartisan Mitchell, Holder will embarrass the nation until
he steps down. Given his partisan temperament and checkered
record in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, his
departure is not a matter of if -- but only when."
Francis A. Schaeffer (20th century Evangelical Theologian):
"We will destroy the church if we do not have the courage in a
radical day like ours to hold onto the absolutes of the Word of
God regardless of the cost. But also when we train children to
take equally what the Bible says and what people will think, we
destroy the Bible's authority ..."
Greg Reese (in American Thinker): "Barack Obama is leading
our nation backwards into chaos parallel to the early years of
20th century Russia... Obama, like Lenin, imposed government
on the people and will systematically dismantle personal freedom."
Dr. Gene Jeffries (Professor, Liberty Theological Seminary):
"In knowing the Lord, and in living by His Word, we can witness
Him turn this country back to Himself, just as He did often with
Israel. God, bless America! -- Please."
And now for a few random Afterthoughts . . .
One wonders what the answer would be . . . One of the news
stories over the past weekend was concerning the formerly "Gay
Pride" parade and festival in San Diego (now the Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender Pride parade) with an estimated 100,000
participants -- said to be the largest such event in the nation. The
parade forced closing of major city streets and took over some
public facilities -- and it all gave rise to this question: "What
would a major city's response be if some churches wanted to
sponsor a 'Christian Pride' parade and festival?" There might be a
problem with the use of the word "pride," given the Bible's view:
"Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a
fall." (Proverbs 16:18) Or: "God resisteth the proud, but giveth
grace to the humble," (James 4:6) So perhaps it would better be
called "Christian Witness" parade. But it's worth a thought . . .
what would city officials ddo if faced with such a request from
local churches?
For what it's worth; a poll result for the 2012 election: the
normally Democrat sympathetic Public Policy Polling (PPP)
ranked President Obama against 4 possible challengers in the
2012 presidential election, and Mr. Obama lost on all but one
of the comparisons, and in that one he finished in a dead heat.
The results: Obama trailed Mitt Romney 46-43; Mike Huckabee
47-45, and Newt Gingrich 46-45. His best score resulted in a
tie with Sarah Palin, 46-46.
And on that general subject: An Opinion Dynamics poll
released just yesterday showed Mr. Obama's job-performance
approval as having reached a new low: 43% . . . and the
Rasmussen daily approval rating was stuck in the same double-
digit negative range where it has been for some months, at -17.
And again we affirm: we are not endorsing Hillary Clinton
for peresident or anything else, but this report seemed interesting.
It seems that the president isn't the only member of his
administration who is faring poorly in the polls. In a recent Harris
poll report, Vice President Joe Biden, received a 26% favorable
score, with 45% unfavorable; Nancy Pelosi received only a 20%
favorable score, with 49% unfavorable, and Senate Majority
leader, Harry Reid, appeared to beat them all with a 33% favorable
score, which was, however, offset by a 52% unfavorable rating.
However -- and this is interesting -- Hillary Clinton earned a 45%
favorable rating against only a 35% disapproval. So for what it's
worth: Hillary is rated by the public as the best of all of them.
The wealthiest U.S. Presidents: approximately every year
Forbes Magazine publishes a list of the 10 wealthiest U.S. presidents,
based on their relative wealth at the time they served as president.
The most recent list is as follows, in chronological order:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
Zachary Taylor
Theodore Roosevelt
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Lyndon Baines Johnson
George W. Bush
Not to go back on our word about not commenting on Chelsea
Clinton's wedding, but this observation by Hillary Clinton seemed
to say a lot, based on Chelsea being nominally Christian and Marc
Mezvinsky being Jewish: "Over the years so many of the barriers
that prevented people from getting married, crossing lines of faith
or color or ethnicity have just disappeared. Because what's
important is: 'Are you making a responsible decision? Have you
thought it through? Do you understand the consequences?' And I
think in the world that we're in today we need more of that."
Hillary thus very glibly tossed out any consideration of Paul's word
in II Cor. 6:14, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers." But, of course, Mr. Obama had previously declared
the writings of Paul to be "obscure."
Remember our recent report on Muslim murders of Christians
in Nigeria? Over the past weekend we noted this news report from
the city of Jos, Nigeria, and we reproduce it in full: "Muslims
attacked a Christian village in central Nigeria Saturday, killing
eight people with machetes and burning seven houses and a church
in fresh religious violence, an army spokesman said." Islam a
"religion of peace?" Please explain that to us in one of your many
TV speeches, Mr. President.
The Founding Fathers spoke on many aspects of American life.
"The importance of piety and religion; of industry and frugality;
of prudence, economy, regularity and an even government; all are
essential to the well-being of a family." -- Samuel Adams, 1780
"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general
government is not to be charged with the whole power of making
and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain
enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic,
but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."
-- James Madison, 1787
"The great leading objects of the federal government, in which
revenue is concerned, are to maintain domestic peace, and provide
for the common defense.." -- Alexander Hamilton, 1788
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
