The Debt Ceiling battle is officially on in Washington. Last night, the House of Representatives went on record voting against raising the Debt Ceiling.
Democrats and Activist Liberals are (predictably) claiming that if we don't raise the debt ceiling the "full faith and credit of the United States will fail." As usual, Liberals are telling us that the sky will fall and crush everything we hold dear if we don't permit them to spend, spend, and spend some more money that we don't have. Deep down inside this insanity is one of the oldest plays in the Liberal playbook: "If we don't (insert massive spending plan here) then the economy will crash, America will fail to be a nation, we will have fires, floods, earthquakes, dogs and cats will begin living together...mass hysteria!" They even use this posthumously when their policies don't work (see the Stimulus), that if we HADN'T acted, things would've been far worse. Neither one ever has to be proven, so they can claim it all they want without concern.
While we're at it, history is being ignored. In 1985, Congress allowed the debt ceiling to stand pat for nearly three months after the limit was hit. In 1993, more than four months passed after the limit was hit before it was raised. In 2002, again, three months after the limit before the limit was raised. In neither of those cases did the world end. Liberals, of course, care not for history, because it is universally devastating for their case.
Americans largely oppose the raising of the debt ceiling by a rate of 47% to 19% who approve of it (sadly, 34% don't know enough to make a decision). (1) The reason, I believe, is simple. Americans live on budgets. I could not afford to spend 5% above my income via credit, and I know each of you, if you're financially wise, will agree. (The ones who aren’t financially wise and do live above your means; you’ll find out in the coming years that I’m right.) Yet the government consistently spends more 50% above its income and wants to be allowed to borrow more and more to feed their insatiable spending habit.
You see, that's the real problem. In 2010, the Federal Government had total tax receipts of $2.163 Trillion. That's right, over $2 trillion in tax dollars were received. However, the government spent a total of $3.456 Trillion. (2) After some quick math, we find out that they spent 59% MORE than they received in taxes. Can you imagine spending 59% MORE than you take in on an annual basis?
Quick object lesson: Consider a young college graduate in their first real job who is making $30,000 per year. If that person were to spend at the same rate the government spends, that person would be living on $47,700 per year! Considering the current interest rates on credit cards are at 20%, paying only the interest on that debt would come to $9540 per year! Does that sound insane? Well guess what, that's what the government is doing. Except the government is doing that with trillions of dollars instead of thousands, and doing it with somebody else’s money…namely ours! That type of spending is absolutely ridiculous!
I'm a realist, my friends. I recognize that we can't simply decide to go down to precisely the amount of gross receipts immediately. I realize that the only things that are outside of mandatory spending are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. I also realize those items can be reduced significantly to a point where they are soluble (that's able to be maintained for more than the next ten years, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). That said, the GOP is doing the right thing thus far by demanding not just billions in cuts but trillions in cuts before the debt ceiling can be raised. Similarly, our friend who was listed above, in order to fix his financial house, would need to now live on only $20,460 of his income to be able to fix the problem. Oh, and don’t forget, he’s paying taxes on that salary too, so he has even less of that money. Considering the level of his prodigal living, that individual would need to create a plan to pay off that debt in say, five years. The Federal government must do the same.
Here is the legitimate practicality of that stance: It requires us to deal with both the long term and short term necessities of the situation. We have to cut spending to ensure that we don't completely run out of money in the future. We also need to not try to do it one fowl swoop, because included in the “discretionary spending” are such legitimate necessities as defense.
At the moment, the Democratic Party doesn't want to admit the candy is already gone from the piñata, preferring to instead continue to whack at it in greater desperation, hoping for not just a stray butterscotch candy might fall out but rather to find that there is another compartment not yet opened with many pounds of fresh candy. That's not the case. The money isn’t there. More importantly, the money does not belong to the government, it belongs to taxpayers.
The truth is, as I’ve said since the beginning on this blog, business owners are not serfs. They are not going to simply stay put and pay taxes through the nose just to make Liberals happy. Rather, they will find a way to protect their profits one way or another. The big businesses will move to another state or even another country where the business climate is better. The smaller businesses will have to lay off workers (which means fewer tax dollars from their employees), or close their doors. That is the reality. Liberals can claim pie in the sky clichés like the rich “can afford it” all they want; the wealthy are not going to just hand over their money without any attempt at self preservation. That self preservation has historically meant moving their operations outside of the United States.
Ronald Reagan claimed famously that we don’t have trillion dollar debts because we tax too little, we have trillion dollar debts because we spend too much. Liberals don’t want to admit the piñata is empty, because it would hurt their ability to buy votes with benefits. Yet it comes back to the fact that the money does not belong to them, that they don’t have a right to just take it because they declare a need.
Furthermore, we don’t NEED to spend that much above and beyond. We don’t need to spend millions on Cowboy Poetry or on National Public Radio to spew Liberal ideas. We don’t have the money to pay for the arts with taxpayer dollars, not when we’re borrowing so that we can spend 59% more than we take in.
For the time being, while we work toward a balanced budget, there may be a need to borrow SOME for the necessities. That said it should ONLY be for necessities! In the past, I’ve been forced to spend above my budget using credit cards. When I was fresh out of college and just starting out, sometimes I was forced to spend on my credit cards to repair my car when it needed it and the cash wasn’t available, or to buy groceries when the cupboards were empty. I have not used a credit card to buy a stereo or a television that isn’t in the budget. I simply couldn’t do it then and I don’t do it now. I can’t buy those things on a credit card (at 20% interest rate to boot, and I have good credit).
Liberals don’t want to say goodbye to their Boss Tweed style favors for votes on a national scale. That is what this is about. The Republican Party, at least for now, has told the Democratic Party that they can stick it; you can’t borrow more money to give away. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, when the GOP drops the ball, we need to hammer them, but when they are carrying the ball and advancing toward the end zone, we need to get their back. At this moment, they’re doing right by the taxpayers.
To you Liberals who read this blog: The sky is not falling. The Democratic Party has played you for a fool when they have previously claimed that the sky would fall if we didn’t pass (insert massive spending package here). It never has, because it’s an ad hoc argument. It’s baloney, quite frankly. It’s time to get our spending in check. The piñata is empty, and the candy in the piñata doesn’t belong to you Liberals to begin with. It’s time to start living within our means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Americans Oppose Raising Debt Ceiling, 47% to 19%
(2) US Government Tax Data
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
I Hope they Run Obama
On Friday, Rush Limbaugh made a statement on his radio show that I found both intriguing and accurate. Let me give you some background first.
For the past several months, the Drive-By Media and the Democratic Party have tried hard to tell us that the candidates they fear the most are those who are the most beatable (see Mitch Daniels) and that the most beatable candidates are those that they most fear (see Sarah Palin). They want us to believe that a moderate wimp would be frightening to Obama. They continue to act like they are rubbing their hands together with glee in the hopes that Sarah Palin or another genuine Conservative would be nominated by the GOP in an effort to stop the GOP from running a genuine Conservative. As I’ve said many times on Biblical Conservatism, I don’t believe them for a second when they spout that. Speaking strictly from a standpoint of wanting to win, why would a political party tell us whom they fear the most, in essence telling their opponents to run the candidate they feel would best beat them? The answer is, of course, they wouldn’t. It’s a silly parlor trick that those of us who are trained in the Liberal playbook have come to recognize with ease.
On Friday, Rush was commenting on this very tactic by Activist Liberals in both elected office and in the Media. His response is one that I couldn’t agree more with: “I hope they run Obama again.”
Rush is, as he historically has been shown to be the vast majority of the time, absolutely right. Despite the baloney that’s being slung at us by the Lamestreamers, the only Presidents who are really unbeatable are those who have had a great track record of economic growth, low unemployment, low inflation, and genuine leadership in the face of adversity. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was legitimately unbeatable, as his landslide victory that included winning 49 states went on to demonstrate. Reagan also had approval ratings in the eighties, a booming economy, and rapidly decreasing unemployment in 1984.
Barrack Obama has approval ratings hovering around the 50% mark that are maintained by a willing media who covers his every mistake and trumpets every victory regardless of small,, nearly 10% unemployment, rampant inflation, and $4 per gallon gasoline. Obama’s greatest legislative accomplishment is widely opposed (Obamacare) and he is spending our nation into oblivion with money that we don’t even have. People know about these details. They aren’t fools. The only question that needs to be asked is the very question Ronald Reagan asked in his 1980 debate with President Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
The answer is no for the vast majority of people. Four years ago we had 4% unemployment and a booming economy. Four years ago gas cost $2 per gallon. The reason we don’t have those things now is due to Liberalism. Yes, the housing bubble burst while George W. Bush was President, but any truly honest economist will tell you it was the sub-prime mortgage bubble bursting that caused the economy to crash. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, the policies that lead to the sub-prime mortgage crisis were policies of President Bill Clinton.)
So I agree with Rush. I sure hope the Democratic Party is foolish enough to run Barrack Obama in 2012. I hope he isn’t beaten in a primary by a better candidate. I’ve said for many months that I believe Foghorn Leghorn could defeat Obama in 2012, and Obama’s record is the reason why. See, in 2008, Barrack Obama didn’t have a record. He spent his minimal political career voting “present” so he had no record to attack. He was essentially a blank slate for voters to project their own idea of a “perfect candidate” upon. In 2012, Obama won’t be able to run from his record. You can’t vote “present” as the President. You have to actually lead. You have to stand for something. Obama’s policies have bankrupted our country. People know it. They know they aren’t better off than they were four years ago.
Think about it, friends. The Democratic Party has told us point blank that they intend to run a candidate who has taken an economy that was struggling due to a crash from the last Liberal President’s policies and made it much, much worse. The Democrats intend to nominate a candidate who said that he had to spend billions of dollars on “stimulus” so that unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% (remind me what unemployment is now? Over 8%?) and then try to cover their rears with unprovable statements like “if we hadn’t acted, things would be much worse.” They intend to run a candidate who has presided over $4 a gallon gasoline and his only solution is “go buy a more fuel efficient car.”
I for one, hope sincerely that the Democratic Party is foolish enough to run Obama again. I’m rubbing my hands together with glee, because this is the candidate the Democratic Party will almost certainly run in 2012. They’re going to run THAT guy again…and on his record, his terrible, terrible record! Finally, a candidate who will make Walter Mondale look like John F. Kennedy in terms of his voter appeal!
The only way we lose to Obama is if we don’t go after his terrible record. And with the Tea Party on the scene, I don’t find it likely. So I say to the Democrats, please, please, PLEASE run Obama! I can’t wait!
For the past several months, the Drive-By Media and the Democratic Party have tried hard to tell us that the candidates they fear the most are those who are the most beatable (see Mitch Daniels) and that the most beatable candidates are those that they most fear (see Sarah Palin). They want us to believe that a moderate wimp would be frightening to Obama. They continue to act like they are rubbing their hands together with glee in the hopes that Sarah Palin or another genuine Conservative would be nominated by the GOP in an effort to stop the GOP from running a genuine Conservative. As I’ve said many times on Biblical Conservatism, I don’t believe them for a second when they spout that. Speaking strictly from a standpoint of wanting to win, why would a political party tell us whom they fear the most, in essence telling their opponents to run the candidate they feel would best beat them? The answer is, of course, they wouldn’t. It’s a silly parlor trick that those of us who are trained in the Liberal playbook have come to recognize with ease.
On Friday, Rush was commenting on this very tactic by Activist Liberals in both elected office and in the Media. His response is one that I couldn’t agree more with: “I hope they run Obama again.”
Rush is, as he historically has been shown to be the vast majority of the time, absolutely right. Despite the baloney that’s being slung at us by the Lamestreamers, the only Presidents who are really unbeatable are those who have had a great track record of economic growth, low unemployment, low inflation, and genuine leadership in the face of adversity. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was legitimately unbeatable, as his landslide victory that included winning 49 states went on to demonstrate. Reagan also had approval ratings in the eighties, a booming economy, and rapidly decreasing unemployment in 1984.
Barrack Obama has approval ratings hovering around the 50% mark that are maintained by a willing media who covers his every mistake and trumpets every victory regardless of small,, nearly 10% unemployment, rampant inflation, and $4 per gallon gasoline. Obama’s greatest legislative accomplishment is widely opposed (Obamacare) and he is spending our nation into oblivion with money that we don’t even have. People know about these details. They aren’t fools. The only question that needs to be asked is the very question Ronald Reagan asked in his 1980 debate with President Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
The answer is no for the vast majority of people. Four years ago we had 4% unemployment and a booming economy. Four years ago gas cost $2 per gallon. The reason we don’t have those things now is due to Liberalism. Yes, the housing bubble burst while George W. Bush was President, but any truly honest economist will tell you it was the sub-prime mortgage bubble bursting that caused the economy to crash. (For those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, the policies that lead to the sub-prime mortgage crisis were policies of President Bill Clinton.)
So I agree with Rush. I sure hope the Democratic Party is foolish enough to run Barrack Obama in 2012. I hope he isn’t beaten in a primary by a better candidate. I’ve said for many months that I believe Foghorn Leghorn could defeat Obama in 2012, and Obama’s record is the reason why. See, in 2008, Barrack Obama didn’t have a record. He spent his minimal political career voting “present” so he had no record to attack. He was essentially a blank slate for voters to project their own idea of a “perfect candidate” upon. In 2012, Obama won’t be able to run from his record. You can’t vote “present” as the President. You have to actually lead. You have to stand for something. Obama’s policies have bankrupted our country. People know it. They know they aren’t better off than they were four years ago.
Think about it, friends. The Democratic Party has told us point blank that they intend to run a candidate who has taken an economy that was struggling due to a crash from the last Liberal President’s policies and made it much, much worse. The Democrats intend to nominate a candidate who said that he had to spend billions of dollars on “stimulus” so that unemployment wouldn’t go above 8% (remind me what unemployment is now? Over 8%?) and then try to cover their rears with unprovable statements like “if we hadn’t acted, things would be much worse.” They intend to run a candidate who has presided over $4 a gallon gasoline and his only solution is “go buy a more fuel efficient car.”
I for one, hope sincerely that the Democratic Party is foolish enough to run Obama again. I’m rubbing my hands together with glee, because this is the candidate the Democratic Party will almost certainly run in 2012. They’re going to run THAT guy again…and on his record, his terrible, terrible record! Finally, a candidate who will make Walter Mondale look like John F. Kennedy in terms of his voter appeal!
The only way we lose to Obama is if we don’t go after his terrible record. And with the Tea Party on the scene, I don’t find it likely. So I say to the Democrats, please, please, PLEASE run Obama! I can’t wait!
Monday, May 30, 2011
To All Who Have Served or Are Serving Now
Today is Memorial Day, and, as cliche as it may sound, I do want to thank those who have so heroically served our country in our armed forces. It was a few weeks ago when Osama Bin Laden was captured that I took time to thank the real heroes of that mission: the U.S. Navy SEALs. Now it's time to thank everybody.
Those of you who are regular readers of Biblical Conservatism know that I am often critical of our President, as is both my right and my responsibility as an American. More importantly, however, I want to say that I would take the worst President in history (and right now it looks like we have that) over the most benevolent dictator or King in history. We are free to criticize Obama and all our other leaders, and the reason that we remain able to do that is the men and women who so bravely serve our country.
To those who have served, to those who are serving now, and to those who are planning to serve in the near future, I give you my endless appreciation. Thank you for keeping us free. God bless you!
Those of you who are regular readers of Biblical Conservatism know that I am often critical of our President, as is both my right and my responsibility as an American. More importantly, however, I want to say that I would take the worst President in history (and right now it looks like we have that) over the most benevolent dictator or King in history. We are free to criticize Obama and all our other leaders, and the reason that we remain able to do that is the men and women who so bravely serve our country.
To those who have served, to those who are serving now, and to those who are planning to serve in the near future, I give you my endless appreciation. Thank you for keeping us free. God bless you!
Friday, May 27, 2011
How Telling: Liberals Claim Voter ID Laws Will "Disenfranchise" Their Voters
On Wednesday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a bill into law that would require voters to present photo identification before voting, rather than simply signing their name. The Drive-By Media and Democratic Party have responded with resounding claims that this bill will “disenfranchise Democrat voters.” Perhaps, if you haven’t spent your life since the age of eight being skeptical and having your ears tuned to Freudian slips like this from the Lamestreamers, you missed it. Let me repeat myself: Democrats are claiming that being required to prove that you are who you say you are would disenfranchise Democrat voters. That’s VERY interesting.
Quick poll: How many of you carry some form of legal identification with you wherever you go? Raise your hand please.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that every hand of every adult who reads this blog is in the air. In addition, I took a poll online, and thanks to my readers here, my Twitter followers, and my Facebook friends, and would you like to know how many of those individuals not only have a photo ID but also carry it wherever they go? About 90% of them, and something tells me the other 10% have ID that they choose not to carry everywhere they go, or perhaps it’s the few readers I have who show up in my tracker as reading this from places like Iraq and Afghanistan and are serving our country (to those of you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.)
Now this poll was by no means scientific, it was no more than a straw poll. Yet I’m certain that if I DID do scientific poll, I would find that the number of eligible individuals in America who are legally able to vote (that’d be a person at least 18 years old, an American citizen, a person who has not been convicted of a felony, and who has registered to vote, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) who do not have any sort of legal photo ID would be miniscule.
Chances are, like most American adults, you have a driver’s license. I’m guessing that the ones of you don’t say, live in Manhattan and take the subway everywhere or for some other reason don’t have a drivers license probably have a non-driver identification card or a passport. The only people who would legitimately not have any need to get any form of legal photo identification are those who neither drive, nor ever leave the country, nor ever want to purchase any age required product, whether that be tobacco, alcohol, or for that matter cough syrup and cold relief pills, or if you want to open a bank account, or have a cell phone plan or rent an apartment, because for each of those things you need photo identification. Whether that is a driver’s license, a non-driver identification card or an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card, it is almost impossible to survive in the adult world without some sort of photo identification. That is the reality of the world.
Furthermore, asking a person to demonstrate they are who they claim to be is very important when it comes to voting. Voter fraud is a serious problem. People are able to claim that they are somebody else to vote more than once, to vote when they are not registered, to vote in the name of the deceased, etc. So what, precisely, does the Democratic Party mean when they say that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise their voters?
As I demonstrated moments ago, it’s nearly impossible to function in the adult world without photo identification, whether you are black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, you need to have some form of photo identification to function in society. So why would it be such a travesty to require those who are registered to vote to show that they are who they claim to be? Considering the majority of us carry our ID with us wherever we go anyway, why who precisely would it disenfranchise?
The answer, of course, is those who aren’t franchised to begin with. People who are not legitimately registered to vote, for whatever reason, would be disallowed to vote. Whether that be those voting for dead people, whether that be convicted felons, whether it be people voting twice under two different names, those individuals would be barred from voting (or voting again).
Buried deep inside this Democrat talking point is a serious issue that is brought up every single election and never dealt with. Democrats, of course, try to give us a slight of hand by claiming that Republicans are going to try to disenfranchise Democrat voters, yet election after election there are no stories of Republicans stopping Democrats from voting. In 2008, we heard stories of the New Black Panthers intimidating Republican voters in Philadelphia. We saw Harry Reid miraculously win in 2010 by about five percent when every poll leading up to the election showed him LOSING by that amount.
No, I’m not insinuating anything. I’m flat out saying that this talking point is showing a real Democrat fear: voter identification laws would stop Democrats from using fraud to win elections. And yes, to whatever degree members of ANY political party would try similar tactics; it would also stop them from such fraud as well. It’s a reasonable piece of legislation that Democrats are throwing a conniption fit over. They are showing their hand a bit. They’re telling us that voter identification would hurt their ability to steal close elections. They will claim, I guarantee it, that requiring individuals to show identification cards to vote is either comparable to Apartheid in South Africa, or maybe Nazi Germany, or how about claim it’s reminiscent of Jim Crow in the South (as usual ignoring the fact, as history demonstrates, that it was Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow) in an effort to deflect this reality. Those tactics, however, are just smoke and mirrors. The reality is simple: the only people who are “disenfranchised” by a voter identification law are those who legally shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Quick poll: How many of you carry some form of legal identification with you wherever you go? Raise your hand please.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that every hand of every adult who reads this blog is in the air. In addition, I took a poll online, and thanks to my readers here, my Twitter followers, and my Facebook friends, and would you like to know how many of those individuals not only have a photo ID but also carry it wherever they go? About 90% of them, and something tells me the other 10% have ID that they choose not to carry everywhere they go, or perhaps it’s the few readers I have who show up in my tracker as reading this from places like Iraq and Afghanistan and are serving our country (to those of you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.)
Now this poll was by no means scientific, it was no more than a straw poll. Yet I’m certain that if I DID do scientific poll, I would find that the number of eligible individuals in America who are legally able to vote (that’d be a person at least 18 years old, an American citizen, a person who has not been convicted of a felony, and who has registered to vote, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) who do not have any sort of legal photo ID would be miniscule.
Chances are, like most American adults, you have a driver’s license. I’m guessing that the ones of you don’t say, live in Manhattan and take the subway everywhere or for some other reason don’t have a drivers license probably have a non-driver identification card or a passport. The only people who would legitimately not have any need to get any form of legal photo identification are those who neither drive, nor ever leave the country, nor ever want to purchase any age required product, whether that be tobacco, alcohol, or for that matter cough syrup and cold relief pills, or if you want to open a bank account, or have a cell phone plan or rent an apartment, because for each of those things you need photo identification. Whether that is a driver’s license, a non-driver identification card or an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card, it is almost impossible to survive in the adult world without some sort of photo identification. That is the reality of the world.
Furthermore, asking a person to demonstrate they are who they claim to be is very important when it comes to voting. Voter fraud is a serious problem. People are able to claim that they are somebody else to vote more than once, to vote when they are not registered, to vote in the name of the deceased, etc. So what, precisely, does the Democratic Party mean when they say that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise their voters?
As I demonstrated moments ago, it’s nearly impossible to function in the adult world without photo identification, whether you are black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, you need to have some form of photo identification to function in society. So why would it be such a travesty to require those who are registered to vote to show that they are who they claim to be? Considering the majority of us carry our ID with us wherever we go anyway, why who precisely would it disenfranchise?
The answer, of course, is those who aren’t franchised to begin with. People who are not legitimately registered to vote, for whatever reason, would be disallowed to vote. Whether that be those voting for dead people, whether that be convicted felons, whether it be people voting twice under two different names, those individuals would be barred from voting (or voting again).
Buried deep inside this Democrat talking point is a serious issue that is brought up every single election and never dealt with. Democrats, of course, try to give us a slight of hand by claiming that Republicans are going to try to disenfranchise Democrat voters, yet election after election there are no stories of Republicans stopping Democrats from voting. In 2008, we heard stories of the New Black Panthers intimidating Republican voters in Philadelphia. We saw Harry Reid miraculously win in 2010 by about five percent when every poll leading up to the election showed him LOSING by that amount.
No, I’m not insinuating anything. I’m flat out saying that this talking point is showing a real Democrat fear: voter identification laws would stop Democrats from using fraud to win elections. And yes, to whatever degree members of ANY political party would try similar tactics; it would also stop them from such fraud as well. It’s a reasonable piece of legislation that Democrats are throwing a conniption fit over. They are showing their hand a bit. They’re telling us that voter identification would hurt their ability to steal close elections. They will claim, I guarantee it, that requiring individuals to show identification cards to vote is either comparable to Apartheid in South Africa, or maybe Nazi Germany, or how about claim it’s reminiscent of Jim Crow in the South (as usual ignoring the fact, as history demonstrates, that it was Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow) in an effort to deflect this reality. Those tactics, however, are just smoke and mirrors. The reality is simple: the only people who are “disenfranchised” by a voter identification law are those who legally shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Reactions to the NY-26th Election
It was as predictable as the tides: When Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin in the New York 26th District’s special election, you just knew that Liberals were going to claim a tremendous reversal of the political fortunes of the Democrat Party. Never mind that we’re talking about New York, one of the most Liberal states in America (trust me, I know, I live there, in NY 26th District at that). Never mind that it was a single district and not a statewide election. Never mind that the Corwin campaign was not particularly vocal about their Conservatism. Never mind that a Liberal ringer was running under the “Tea Party” label falsely and took away 9% of the vote, presumably all of it from Corwin. For the record, Hochul received 47% of the vote and Corwin 43% of the vote. If you figure even 2/3 of Davis’ false Tea Party label going to the Republican, Corwin wins. The Liberal Media is busily telling us how this is a huge victory for the Democratic Party on a national scene.
It’s not even close to a major victory for the Democratic Party. It’s a blip on the radar. What it does mean is further evidence that the GOP needs to not be shy about its Conservatism, because moderate Republicans aren’t going to get elected, for no other reason than if the GOP tries to run more of the usual moderate John McCain types, the Tea Party will almost certainly split from the Republican Party and form an official third party. That will not end well for the Republicans.
But Chris, weren’t the elections of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and the election of Scott Brown as Senator from Massachusetts declared a huge sign of this to come for the nation? Yes, they were, and rightly so. But there are two huge differences. One, both those elections were statewide, not a single district. Two, those victories were Republican victories in strongly Democratic states. Any victory for a Democrat in New York can hardly be called a major victory. Yes, it is a relatively Republican district, but believe me, there are quite a few Democrats in the district, after all it is New York. (Remember, I live in the NY 26th District, I know what I’m talking about!)
For weeks now I’ve been telling you that the Democratic internal polling is likely showing that Obama and the Democrats are in deep trouble if the Tea Party again takes the forefront in 2012. They want to dishearten us. They want us to forfeit before the umpire hollers “play ball.” So they trumpet every little victory of theirs as a tremendous one. It isn’t.
What really happened was a case of the Republican Party fumbling the ball. We ran a relatively Conservative candidate, but we didn’t trumpet her Conservatism. In the process, the Democrat had to absolutely lie about the Paul Ryan plan. She had to lie and scare senior citizens into believing that the Ryan plan would take away their Medicare, instead of telling the truth: That the Ryan plan does not change the Medicare and Social Security benefits of anybody over the age of 55. It only changes it for those of us who come after, so that we can still HAVE Medicare and Social Security when people my age retire. That’d be nice, considering I’ve been paying into those programs since I was fourteen years old. But, following typical Liberal politicking, they lied to win.
In 2012, the Tea Party isn’t going to LET the GOP fumble the ball. We’re going to primary the RINOs Republicans and continue to replace them with Tea Party candidates. Or consider the 2012 GOP Presidential field: The candidate who was, in 2008, the most Conservative viable option throughout the primaries, Romney, is now the “establishment candidate.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney supporter, but I’d take a Mitt Romney over a John McCain in terms of his policies, even with Romneycare.
In the NY-26th Election, the GOP did drop the ball. No question. But it was a special election without the Tea Parties in full swing. In 2012, you better believe we will be. As a matter of fact, the NY 26th Election just fired us up, and I would be surprised if Hochul doesn’t lose in 2012. Yes, the Democrats won this small skirmish. That does not mean they will win the war, regardless of what the Drive-By Media will spend the next months telling us.
It’s not even close to a major victory for the Democratic Party. It’s a blip on the radar. What it does mean is further evidence that the GOP needs to not be shy about its Conservatism, because moderate Republicans aren’t going to get elected, for no other reason than if the GOP tries to run more of the usual moderate John McCain types, the Tea Party will almost certainly split from the Republican Party and form an official third party. That will not end well for the Republicans.
But Chris, weren’t the elections of Chris Christie as Governor of New Jersey and the election of Scott Brown as Senator from Massachusetts declared a huge sign of this to come for the nation? Yes, they were, and rightly so. But there are two huge differences. One, both those elections were statewide, not a single district. Two, those victories were Republican victories in strongly Democratic states. Any victory for a Democrat in New York can hardly be called a major victory. Yes, it is a relatively Republican district, but believe me, there are quite a few Democrats in the district, after all it is New York. (Remember, I live in the NY 26th District, I know what I’m talking about!)
For weeks now I’ve been telling you that the Democratic internal polling is likely showing that Obama and the Democrats are in deep trouble if the Tea Party again takes the forefront in 2012. They want to dishearten us. They want us to forfeit before the umpire hollers “play ball.” So they trumpet every little victory of theirs as a tremendous one. It isn’t.
What really happened was a case of the Republican Party fumbling the ball. We ran a relatively Conservative candidate, but we didn’t trumpet her Conservatism. In the process, the Democrat had to absolutely lie about the Paul Ryan plan. She had to lie and scare senior citizens into believing that the Ryan plan would take away their Medicare, instead of telling the truth: That the Ryan plan does not change the Medicare and Social Security benefits of anybody over the age of 55. It only changes it for those of us who come after, so that we can still HAVE Medicare and Social Security when people my age retire. That’d be nice, considering I’ve been paying into those programs since I was fourteen years old. But, following typical Liberal politicking, they lied to win.
In 2012, the Tea Party isn’t going to LET the GOP fumble the ball. We’re going to primary the RINOs Republicans and continue to replace them with Tea Party candidates. Or consider the 2012 GOP Presidential field: The candidate who was, in 2008, the most Conservative viable option throughout the primaries, Romney, is now the “establishment candidate.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a Romney supporter, but I’d take a Mitt Romney over a John McCain in terms of his policies, even with Romneycare.
In the NY-26th Election, the GOP did drop the ball. No question. But it was a special election without the Tea Parties in full swing. In 2012, you better believe we will be. As a matter of fact, the NY 26th Election just fired us up, and I would be surprised if Hochul doesn’t lose in 2012. Yes, the Democrats won this small skirmish. That does not mean they will win the war, regardless of what the Drive-By Media will spend the next months telling us.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
On Israel: Obama's Rules Don't Apply to Obama?
Israel has dominated the headlines for the last week or so, thanks to a tone-deaf speech by Barrack Obama telling Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders. On Monday, I took the occasion to discuss the absolute ridiculousness of that statement. Today I want to point out something entirely different. Anybody else remember President Obama and other Liberals talking about how America has no right to tell the rest of the world how to live? That was what Liberals said about Iraq and Afghanistan, when America was fighting wars for the sake of our own security, and while we were already deposing their despot governments, we also gave those nations the ability to choose their own government (trusting that those individuals would not vote themselves into rape rooms and torture chambers). That was said to be wrong by Liberals, including President Obama.
Yet now Obama is telling another sovereign nation…A DEMOCRACY…that they should forfeit part of their land as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Come again? So basically, it’s okay for Obama to tell other nations what to do because…what…because he’s Obama? I know Obama does not like having standards applied to him, especially his own, but since Liberals love to wait for people to fail and pounce, turnabout is fair play, I’m calling the President to the carpet on this one.
This was pure Obama narcissism at its most obvious. This is Obama thinking the he can solve the Israel/Palestine problem with a speech. This is Obama thinking that he and his fellow academics have figured out how to simply and quickly solve the Middle East problems over coffee in the faculty lounge at Harvard. It shows all the signs of Liberal problem solving on a world scale: Do one thing, call it easy (even though it’s clearly hard if not impossible), tell the people who have done most of the compromising to compromise already, treat the bad people like they’re victims and treat the good people like they’re the evil ones, and don’t forget to sound arrogant, as if you can’t believe the two sides haven’t already thought of this oh-so-simple solution.
This solution can’t work, it won’t work. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it immediately after Obama’s speech, that the 1967 lines are indefensible. That’s not just a rhetorical point. At certain points of the 1967 borders, Israel would be a mere 8 miles wide and surrounded by hostile nations. It’s pretty darn difficult to defend, which is one of those pesky nuances I mentioned moments ago that don’t come up in teachers lounges thousands of miles away between Liberals who are living in an overly ideal world where nothing ever goes wrong. If Obama was a tithe as smart as we’re told he is, he would understand the reality of the situation in which Israel finds itself. Israel isn’t surrounded to its north by a highly friendly nation like Canada and a nation to our south, Mexico, who, although not particularly wonderfully safe to its own people, the U.S. Navy could defeat the Mexican Army in a land war. Israel, on the other hand, is surrounded by nations who desperately want to wipe them off the face of the Earth and are perfectly willing to suicide bomb not just soldiers but the women and children to achieve that goal.
This is just another example of Obama’s arrogance and narcissism, thinking that he could solve a centuries old problem that dates back to the book of Genesis and the feud between the brothers Isaac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham. It’s going to be solved only if Palestine comes to the bargaining table for real, not just with unrealistic requirements. As a Christian I’ve read the Bible, I’ve read the book of Ezekiel (1), and I know how this will end. It says nothing about a speech being given by a foreign leader that solves all the problems.
So here we see the narcissistic Obama on display. Whether it be in the fact that he told his predecessor that the U.S. shouldn’t interfere in other nation’s businesses as it pertained to tin-pot dictators who oppressed their people and then told a Democracy how to protect itself, or the fact that Obama seems to genuinely believe he can give a speech and solve a centuries old problem, Obama is showing us his arrogance. This is who Barrack Obama believes himself to be, a “chosen one” who can solve the world’s problems with his voice. Of course, he can’t. He didn’t do a darn thing in Israel but tick off our ally. This is who our President is…an intellectual, overly educated fool who doesn’t understand the world works.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Ezekiel 38 and 39
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Yet now Obama is telling another sovereign nation…A DEMOCRACY…that they should forfeit part of their land as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Come again? So basically, it’s okay for Obama to tell other nations what to do because…what…because he’s Obama? I know Obama does not like having standards applied to him, especially his own, but since Liberals love to wait for people to fail and pounce, turnabout is fair play, I’m calling the President to the carpet on this one.
This was pure Obama narcissism at its most obvious. This is Obama thinking the he can solve the Israel/Palestine problem with a speech. This is Obama thinking that he and his fellow academics have figured out how to simply and quickly solve the Middle East problems over coffee in the faculty lounge at Harvard. It shows all the signs of Liberal problem solving on a world scale: Do one thing, call it easy (even though it’s clearly hard if not impossible), tell the people who have done most of the compromising to compromise already, treat the bad people like they’re victims and treat the good people like they’re the evil ones, and don’t forget to sound arrogant, as if you can’t believe the two sides haven’t already thought of this oh-so-simple solution.
This solution can’t work, it won’t work. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it immediately after Obama’s speech, that the 1967 lines are indefensible. That’s not just a rhetorical point. At certain points of the 1967 borders, Israel would be a mere 8 miles wide and surrounded by hostile nations. It’s pretty darn difficult to defend, which is one of those pesky nuances I mentioned moments ago that don’t come up in teachers lounges thousands of miles away between Liberals who are living in an overly ideal world where nothing ever goes wrong. If Obama was a tithe as smart as we’re told he is, he would understand the reality of the situation in which Israel finds itself. Israel isn’t surrounded to its north by a highly friendly nation like Canada and a nation to our south, Mexico, who, although not particularly wonderfully safe to its own people, the U.S. Navy could defeat the Mexican Army in a land war. Israel, on the other hand, is surrounded by nations who desperately want to wipe them off the face of the Earth and are perfectly willing to suicide bomb not just soldiers but the women and children to achieve that goal.
This is just another example of Obama’s arrogance and narcissism, thinking that he could solve a centuries old problem that dates back to the book of Genesis and the feud between the brothers Isaac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham. It’s going to be solved only if Palestine comes to the bargaining table for real, not just with unrealistic requirements. As a Christian I’ve read the Bible, I’ve read the book of Ezekiel (1), and I know how this will end. It says nothing about a speech being given by a foreign leader that solves all the problems.
So here we see the narcissistic Obama on display. Whether it be in the fact that he told his predecessor that the U.S. shouldn’t interfere in other nation’s businesses as it pertained to tin-pot dictators who oppressed their people and then told a Democracy how to protect itself, or the fact that Obama seems to genuinely believe he can give a speech and solve a centuries old problem, Obama is showing us his arrogance. This is who Barrack Obama believes himself to be, a “chosen one” who can solve the world’s problems with his voice. Of course, he can’t. He didn’t do a darn thing in Israel but tick off our ally. This is who our President is…an intellectual, overly educated fool who doesn’t understand the world works.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Ezekiel 38 and 39
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
GOP Field Is NOT Weak, Regardless of What MSM Tells Us
It's the latest Drive-By Media line that the Republican 2012 field isn't "serious" or that it's a "weak field." As usual, I don't believe a word that comes out of the Lamestreamers, and this is no different. This is yet another attempt by the Media to tell us how "unbeatable" Obama will be. In true Biblical Conservatism fashion, time to dive into the truth.
Before we consider how legitimately strong the Republican field is, let's first discuss the ultimate nominee's opponent, Barrack Obama. This will give us a sense of what the Lamestream Media's definition of a political heavyweight:
Barrack Obama
Barrack Obama served as a "community organizer" for just under three years (which is a Liberal term which means "professional protester.") He then went to Harvard Law school, was an associate with a law firm for a whopping 3 years before spending the following eight years as "of counsel" for the firm. For those of you unfamiliar with that particular term, "of counsel" is usually a position reserved for people who aren't actually doing anything for the firm but that the firm wants to claim as part of their organization. (Usually it's an emeritus position given to those who have retired.) During those eight years Obama also lectured at Harvard Law School. He then ran for the state senate in Illinois, winning by getting his opponent kicked off the ballot on a technicality. He then served seven years in the Illinois State Legislator, where he spent his time voting present and not actually sponsoring any legislation. Then he ran for the US Senate, winning after his opponent had to quit due to a scandal. He spent two years there voting present before running for President.
So THAT'S what a political heavyweight looks like according to Liberals? Now let's look at the declared and potential candidates in the GOP Field. Please note, I am not endorsing anyone in particular here, but I do contend every single one of them are more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2012:
Mitt Romney
Romney was the co-founder and President of a the investment firm Bain Capital, an offshoot of Bain and Company, for whom he had previously worked. He returned to Bain and Company, as it's CEO, for two years to help dig that company out of financial straights. In two years, when the company was again fiscally strong, he returned to Bain Capital. He remained there for nine years, until 2002, when he served as the CEO and President of 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee. In 2003, he was elected governor of Massachusetts, serving until 2007. He chose not to run for a second term, instead choosing to run for President in 2008.
In short, Romney has several years of experience running a business as a President and CEO, along with executive governing experience.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich spent 20 years in the House of Representatives, serving Georgia's 6th Congressional District. From 1989-1993, Gingrich served as the House Minority Whip (the #2 Republican in the House). In 1994, as the Republican Party was swept to power in that historic election, Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House, a role he served in until he resigned from the House in 1998.
As Speaker, he lead the charge for Welfare Reform, the balanced budget, and other parts of the Contract with America, which included $152 Billion in tax cuts. He also lead Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which slashed Capital Gains Taxes from 28% to 20% and lowered the lowest marginal tax rate from 15% to 10%.
So Gingrich has 20 years of legislative experience (more than double Obama's) including five years as the second most powerful man in the Federal government (that'd be Speaker of the House, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). He has a real track record on the issues, instead of Obama's record of voting present.
Tim Pawlenty
Pawlenty served a term as a city councilman in Egan Minnesota, before serving six terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives. That included serving for four years as the Minnesota House Majority Leader. From 2002 to 2010, Pawlenty served as Governor of Minnesota. His notable achievements include a mandatory 24 hour waiting period before receiving an abortion and putting Minnesota on the track to a balanced budget, which was achieved, without raising taxes.
So Pawlenty has several years more state legislative experience than Obama and eight years of executive experience as a governor.
Rick Santorum
Santorum served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1990-1994. Among his other legislative successes, Santorum was part of the Gang of Seven, a group of seven Republicans who took down the House Banking Scandal by correcting those misuses of taxpayer money. In 1994, he was elected to the United States Senate, where he served two terms.
So, Santorum has six times the Senatorial experience that Obama had before becoming President plus an additional four years in the House of Representatives. That means he has ten times the Federal governing experience that Obama had when he was elected President. (He still has more than twice Obama's experience on the national level when you include Obama's 2 plus years as President.)
Michelle Bachmann
Bachmann served from 2000-2006 in the Minnesota State Senate, standing up for traditional marriage, including co-sponsoring an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to legally define marriage as between one man and one woman. She also served as the Senate Miniority Leader for Minnesota.
In 2006, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where she is now serving her third term. She has stood up against the ban on incandecent light bulbs (a favorite move of the environmentalist nanny-state) and opposed Obama's 2008 Bailout. In 2009 she introduced a Constitutional Amendment to bar the United States from recognizing any foreign currency. She also opposed Obamacare. She is currently the head of the House of Representative's Tea Party Caucus.
Sarah Palin
Palin served as a city council member in Wasilla, AK for four years. She was then elected Mayor of Wasilla, serving two three-year terms from 1996-2002. From 2003-04, Palin was Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she rooted out corruption in that organization. In 2006, Palin was elected Governor of Alaska, where she oversaw tremendous growth in the Alaksan economy, in addition to cutting spending and taxes. Throughout all this time, Palin and her husband Todd have run a small business, a commercial salmon fishing operation, in Bristol Bay, AK.
Herman Cain
Herman Cain's career began as a Ballstics Specialist for the Department of the Navy. He then served as a business analyst for Coca-Cola, then as a Vice President with Pilsbury, then leaving to work for Burger King, which was then a Pilsbury subsidy. He lead Burger King from being one of Pilsbury's least profitable ventures to it's most profitable venture in three years. At that point, Pilsbury appointed him CEO of another of their subsidaries, Godfather's Pizza, in 1986. In eighteen months, Cain and other investors purchased Godfather's Pizza. He continued to serve as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association. He was a board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1992-1996, serving as Chairman from 1995-1996.
In addition, Cain has hosted a syndicated radio show out of Atlanta, so you know he can communicate the message of Conservatism effectively. In this role, Cain was one of the biggest influences in defeating Clinton's Health Care initiative in 1993-94.
In short, Cain has military experience, albeit as a civilian, which is more than Obama has, years of business experience as a CEO and Chairman.
So What Does it Mean?
The GOP field, which currently includes or may soon include three former governors, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, three people with CEO experience who have run businesses, three people with more experience in elected office as a legislature than Obama had in 2012, and five people who have had more influence on national policy than Obama had before becoming President (and that includes Cain, who hasn't been elected to national office before).
On the other hand, we have Obama, who had been a professional protester, an attorney for a mere three years, then spent a handful of years as a legislator voting present and sponsoring no major legislation. As President he has presided over 10% unemployment, $4 per gallon gas, did nothing of note politically before being elected President, has done nothing helpful domestically, and whose biggest victory to date was achieved by continuing the same policies of his predecessor that he lambasted as a candidate.
If you want to see a political lightweight, look at Obama. The GOP field, on the other hand, is complete with executive experience, legislative experience, and business experience. Any one of them would make an infinitely better President than Obama. They may not give prettier speeches, but speeches never grew an economy. The real weak candidate is the incumbent, Pesident Barrack Obama.
Before we consider how legitimately strong the Republican field is, let's first discuss the ultimate nominee's opponent, Barrack Obama. This will give us a sense of what the Lamestream Media's definition of a political heavyweight:
Barrack Obama
Barrack Obama served as a "community organizer" for just under three years (which is a Liberal term which means "professional protester.") He then went to Harvard Law school, was an associate with a law firm for a whopping 3 years before spending the following eight years as "of counsel" for the firm. For those of you unfamiliar with that particular term, "of counsel" is usually a position reserved for people who aren't actually doing anything for the firm but that the firm wants to claim as part of their organization. (Usually it's an emeritus position given to those who have retired.) During those eight years Obama also lectured at Harvard Law School. He then ran for the state senate in Illinois, winning by getting his opponent kicked off the ballot on a technicality. He then served seven years in the Illinois State Legislator, where he spent his time voting present and not actually sponsoring any legislation. Then he ran for the US Senate, winning after his opponent had to quit due to a scandal. He spent two years there voting present before running for President.
So THAT'S what a political heavyweight looks like according to Liberals? Now let's look at the declared and potential candidates in the GOP Field. Please note, I am not endorsing anyone in particular here, but I do contend every single one of them are more qualified to be President than Obama was in 2012:
Mitt Romney
Romney was the co-founder and President of a the investment firm Bain Capital, an offshoot of Bain and Company, for whom he had previously worked. He returned to Bain and Company, as it's CEO, for two years to help dig that company out of financial straights. In two years, when the company was again fiscally strong, he returned to Bain Capital. He remained there for nine years, until 2002, when he served as the CEO and President of 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games Organizing Committee. In 2003, he was elected governor of Massachusetts, serving until 2007. He chose not to run for a second term, instead choosing to run for President in 2008.
In short, Romney has several years of experience running a business as a President and CEO, along with executive governing experience.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich spent 20 years in the House of Representatives, serving Georgia's 6th Congressional District. From 1989-1993, Gingrich served as the House Minority Whip (the #2 Republican in the House). In 1994, as the Republican Party was swept to power in that historic election, Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House, a role he served in until he resigned from the House in 1998.
As Speaker, he lead the charge for Welfare Reform, the balanced budget, and other parts of the Contract with America, which included $152 Billion in tax cuts. He also lead Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which slashed Capital Gains Taxes from 28% to 20% and lowered the lowest marginal tax rate from 15% to 10%.
So Gingrich has 20 years of legislative experience (more than double Obama's) including five years as the second most powerful man in the Federal government (that'd be Speaker of the House, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL). He has a real track record on the issues, instead of Obama's record of voting present.
Tim Pawlenty
Pawlenty served a term as a city councilman in Egan Minnesota, before serving six terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives. That included serving for four years as the Minnesota House Majority Leader. From 2002 to 2010, Pawlenty served as Governor of Minnesota. His notable achievements include a mandatory 24 hour waiting period before receiving an abortion and putting Minnesota on the track to a balanced budget, which was achieved, without raising taxes.
So Pawlenty has several years more state legislative experience than Obama and eight years of executive experience as a governor.
Rick Santorum
Santorum served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1990-1994. Among his other legislative successes, Santorum was part of the Gang of Seven, a group of seven Republicans who took down the House Banking Scandal by correcting those misuses of taxpayer money. In 1994, he was elected to the United States Senate, where he served two terms.
So, Santorum has six times the Senatorial experience that Obama had before becoming President plus an additional four years in the House of Representatives. That means he has ten times the Federal governing experience that Obama had when he was elected President. (He still has more than twice Obama's experience on the national level when you include Obama's 2 plus years as President.)
Michelle Bachmann
Bachmann served from 2000-2006 in the Minnesota State Senate, standing up for traditional marriage, including co-sponsoring an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to legally define marriage as between one man and one woman. She also served as the Senate Miniority Leader for Minnesota.
In 2006, she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, where she is now serving her third term. She has stood up against the ban on incandecent light bulbs (a favorite move of the environmentalist nanny-state) and opposed Obama's 2008 Bailout. In 2009 she introduced a Constitutional Amendment to bar the United States from recognizing any foreign currency. She also opposed Obamacare. She is currently the head of the House of Representative's Tea Party Caucus.
Sarah Palin
Palin served as a city council member in Wasilla, AK for four years. She was then elected Mayor of Wasilla, serving two three-year terms from 1996-2002. From 2003-04, Palin was Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she rooted out corruption in that organization. In 2006, Palin was elected Governor of Alaska, where she oversaw tremendous growth in the Alaksan economy, in addition to cutting spending and taxes. Throughout all this time, Palin and her husband Todd have run a small business, a commercial salmon fishing operation, in Bristol Bay, AK.
Herman Cain
Herman Cain's career began as a Ballstics Specialist for the Department of the Navy. He then served as a business analyst for Coca-Cola, then as a Vice President with Pilsbury, then leaving to work for Burger King, which was then a Pilsbury subsidy. He lead Burger King from being one of Pilsbury's least profitable ventures to it's most profitable venture in three years. At that point, Pilsbury appointed him CEO of another of their subsidaries, Godfather's Pizza, in 1986. In eighteen months, Cain and other investors purchased Godfather's Pizza. He continued to serve as CEO until 1996, when he resigned to become CEO of the National Restaurant Association. He was a board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 1992-1996, serving as Chairman from 1995-1996.
In addition, Cain has hosted a syndicated radio show out of Atlanta, so you know he can communicate the message of Conservatism effectively. In this role, Cain was one of the biggest influences in defeating Clinton's Health Care initiative in 1993-94.
In short, Cain has military experience, albeit as a civilian, which is more than Obama has, years of business experience as a CEO and Chairman.
So What Does it Mean?
The GOP field, which currently includes or may soon include three former governors, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, three people with CEO experience who have run businesses, three people with more experience in elected office as a legislature than Obama had in 2012, and five people who have had more influence on national policy than Obama had before becoming President (and that includes Cain, who hasn't been elected to national office before).
On the other hand, we have Obama, who had been a professional protester, an attorney for a mere three years, then spent a handful of years as a legislator voting present and sponsoring no major legislation. As President he has presided over 10% unemployment, $4 per gallon gas, did nothing of note politically before being elected President, has done nothing helpful domestically, and whose biggest victory to date was achieved by continuing the same policies of his predecessor that he lambasted as a candidate.
If you want to see a political lightweight, look at Obama. The GOP field, on the other hand, is complete with executive experience, legislative experience, and business experience. Any one of them would make an infinitely better President than Obama. They may not give prettier speeches, but speeches never grew an economy. The real weak candidate is the incumbent, Pesident Barrack Obama.
Monday, May 23, 2011
On Israel, Obama Takes Side of Enemies Instead of Friends
On Thursday of last week, President Obama gave a reprehensible foreign policy speech wherein he called for Israel to return to its borders from before 1967's Six Days War. Unsurprisingly, Obama showed himself to be tone-deaf on this issue at best. Israel has been a strong ally of the United States since its formation in 1948. In a Middle East that is fraught with nations who range from uneasy co-existence (see Saudi Arabia) with the United States to nations that are outright dangerous to the United States (see Iran), Israel has remained our only true friend in that region. Yet the President, in an effort to claim for himself a major foreign policy victory (or to at least claim great efforts to that end) has now thrown one of our strongest allies under the bus. Quote Prime Minister Netanyahu:
We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. ... For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities -- the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible. (1)
For those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that's what happens when an adult on the political stage like Prime Minister Netanyahu gives a dose of reality to our unrealistically idealistic man-child President. Israel is not going to pull back their borders in an effort to appease Palestine. Nor should they. Palestine as a nation and Hamas, its leading political party. The reason is because Hamas has, in its charter, a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map. (2) The idea that peace can be achieved through sufficient compromise and pandering is one that has always been a favorite of the Left, and it’s one that has never worked.
How well did it work to appease Hitler? Did he stop attempting to conquer the land he had already conquered when Europe let him proceed to occupy the territories that he had already invaded? Absolutely not! Hitler proceeded to conquer France, one of the appeasing nations, and attempt to conquer Great Britain, another appeasing nation. Yet Obama, like so many other Liberals, believes that he can appease enough to make evil people be nice.
Here’s the problem with Obama’s foolish plan: He’s telling the reasonable party to compromise more instead of telling the unreasonable party to start compromising. Hamas and Palestine are unrepentant and bent on the destruction of Israel. How precisely does Obama expect them to compromise on that? Should they let Palestine destroy half of Israel? That’s pretty much the only meeting halfway that can be done between Israel and Palestine. It’s like the old adage, “How do you compromise with poison?” Do you compromise and allow enough poison into your food to make you sick but not enough to kill you? Of course you don’t! You refuse to ingest the poison. The same stands for Israel. There is no compromising with people who want to wipe you off the map. You can only defend yourself against them, and, if possible, defeat those enemies. That is the only real option.
I recommend you read the history of the Six Days War. You will find that Israel was facing an imminent attack from Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, among other Arab nations, and defended itself. Israel won that war, and, as part of the peace treaty that ended that conflict. The very same Palestinians to whom Obama wants Israel to give away their land was one of those nations which attacked Israel. To give an American example, for Obama to tell Israel to give back part of their territory which they were ceded as part of a treaty at the end of a war is similar to the Prime Minister of Great Britain insisting that the United States return Texas to Mexico.
For those of you who aren’t familiar, Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836 in a war. For nine years, Texas was an independent nation. The people of Texas, which consisted largely of emigrants from the United States, desired to cede itself to the United States as a state. Mexico denied Texas’ independence but largely ignored it until it attempted to cede itself to the United States. Once the United States and Texas had joined together mutually, it lead to a war with Mexico, which the United States won.
To say that Israel should return part of its territory to the Palestinians is pure sophistry. Obama has precisely zero right to tell Israel to do so. It is a sign of Obama’s narcissism that he would even think he had the right to tell Israel to give that land to the Palestinians as a peace offering. Clearly it was not something even discussed with Israel. Obama was trying to throw his weight around and Prime Minister Netanyahu told Obama, politely but in no uncertain terms, to mind his own darn business.
As a Christian, I know what it would mean if the United States would turn its back on Israel. I do not want to see my country be a goat nation. Right now, and since Israel was founded, the United States has been a sheep nation. (3) A past mentor of mine once told me that the moment the United States becomes a goat nation, he was moving to Israel. Part of me would be similarly inclined. However, I also know the Bible that God protects His children even when they are residing in goat nations. Consider Lot. God protected Lot even before He destroyed Sodom.
Here’s the reality of the situation, in a nutshell. One, Obama had no right to tell Israel to return land to the Palestinians, who have done nothing but attack Israel and threaten its existence. It’s yet another “who do you think you are” moment from Obama. Secondly, it is pure foolishness to think that appeasing Hamas will cause them to be nice. It’s another idealistic dream from Obama and the rest of the Activist Liberals who live in a fantasy world where, if you’re just nice enough to your enemies who are bent on your destruction, those enemies become as sweet as honey to you and respect your right to exist. It doesn’t work, and it never has worked.
Israel is our friend. They have every right to defend themselves against the attacks of the Palestinians as well as all others. Palestine has attacked Israel countless times, whether through Hamas or directly. Israel is perfectly willing to let Palestine be and to co-exist. Palestine is not. It is Palestine that needs to compromise. Israel has compromised enough. If Obama was half as smart as the Drive-By Media tells us he is, he would get this. Yet Obama is a rigid Activist Liberal ideologue feels the need to assert himself in a situation that is not his business and tell the good guy in the conflict that they should compromise with the bad guy. To invoke a metaphor from my childhood, Obama just told the Ninja Turtles to compromise with Shredder so they could stop fighting.
Netanyahu gets it. Obama doesn’t. Anyone surprised? If you are, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Ohio to sell you at a rock bottom price.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Netanyahu Rejects Obama Statehood Demand After Oval Office Meeting
(2) Hamas – Wikipedia Page
(3) Matthew 25:31-46
We both agree that a peace based on illusions will crash against the rocks of Middle Eastern reality. ... For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities -- the first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible. (1)
For those of you in Palm Beach County, FL, that's what happens when an adult on the political stage like Prime Minister Netanyahu gives a dose of reality to our unrealistically idealistic man-child President. Israel is not going to pull back their borders in an effort to appease Palestine. Nor should they. Palestine as a nation and Hamas, its leading political party. The reason is because Hamas has, in its charter, a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map. (2) The idea that peace can be achieved through sufficient compromise and pandering is one that has always been a favorite of the Left, and it’s one that has never worked.
How well did it work to appease Hitler? Did he stop attempting to conquer the land he had already conquered when Europe let him proceed to occupy the territories that he had already invaded? Absolutely not! Hitler proceeded to conquer France, one of the appeasing nations, and attempt to conquer Great Britain, another appeasing nation. Yet Obama, like so many other Liberals, believes that he can appease enough to make evil people be nice.
Here’s the problem with Obama’s foolish plan: He’s telling the reasonable party to compromise more instead of telling the unreasonable party to start compromising. Hamas and Palestine are unrepentant and bent on the destruction of Israel. How precisely does Obama expect them to compromise on that? Should they let Palestine destroy half of Israel? That’s pretty much the only meeting halfway that can be done between Israel and Palestine. It’s like the old adage, “How do you compromise with poison?” Do you compromise and allow enough poison into your food to make you sick but not enough to kill you? Of course you don’t! You refuse to ingest the poison. The same stands for Israel. There is no compromising with people who want to wipe you off the map. You can only defend yourself against them, and, if possible, defeat those enemies. That is the only real option.
I recommend you read the history of the Six Days War. You will find that Israel was facing an imminent attack from Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, among other Arab nations, and defended itself. Israel won that war, and, as part of the peace treaty that ended that conflict. The very same Palestinians to whom Obama wants Israel to give away their land was one of those nations which attacked Israel. To give an American example, for Obama to tell Israel to give back part of their territory which they were ceded as part of a treaty at the end of a war is similar to the Prime Minister of Great Britain insisting that the United States return Texas to Mexico.
For those of you who aren’t familiar, Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836 in a war. For nine years, Texas was an independent nation. The people of Texas, which consisted largely of emigrants from the United States, desired to cede itself to the United States as a state. Mexico denied Texas’ independence but largely ignored it until it attempted to cede itself to the United States. Once the United States and Texas had joined together mutually, it lead to a war with Mexico, which the United States won.
To say that Israel should return part of its territory to the Palestinians is pure sophistry. Obama has precisely zero right to tell Israel to do so. It is a sign of Obama’s narcissism that he would even think he had the right to tell Israel to give that land to the Palestinians as a peace offering. Clearly it was not something even discussed with Israel. Obama was trying to throw his weight around and Prime Minister Netanyahu told Obama, politely but in no uncertain terms, to mind his own darn business.
As a Christian, I know what it would mean if the United States would turn its back on Israel. I do not want to see my country be a goat nation. Right now, and since Israel was founded, the United States has been a sheep nation. (3) A past mentor of mine once told me that the moment the United States becomes a goat nation, he was moving to Israel. Part of me would be similarly inclined. However, I also know the Bible that God protects His children even when they are residing in goat nations. Consider Lot. God protected Lot even before He destroyed Sodom.
Here’s the reality of the situation, in a nutshell. One, Obama had no right to tell Israel to return land to the Palestinians, who have done nothing but attack Israel and threaten its existence. It’s yet another “who do you think you are” moment from Obama. Secondly, it is pure foolishness to think that appeasing Hamas will cause them to be nice. It’s another idealistic dream from Obama and the rest of the Activist Liberals who live in a fantasy world where, if you’re just nice enough to your enemies who are bent on your destruction, those enemies become as sweet as honey to you and respect your right to exist. It doesn’t work, and it never has worked.
Israel is our friend. They have every right to defend themselves against the attacks of the Palestinians as well as all others. Palestine has attacked Israel countless times, whether through Hamas or directly. Israel is perfectly willing to let Palestine be and to co-exist. Palestine is not. It is Palestine that needs to compromise. Israel has compromised enough. If Obama was half as smart as the Drive-By Media tells us he is, he would get this. Yet Obama is a rigid Activist Liberal ideologue feels the need to assert himself in a situation that is not his business and tell the good guy in the conflict that they should compromise with the bad guy. To invoke a metaphor from my childhood, Obama just told the Ninja Turtles to compromise with Shredder so they could stop fighting.
Netanyahu gets it. Obama doesn’t. Anyone surprised? If you are, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Ohio to sell you at a rock bottom price.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Netanyahu Rejects Obama Statehood Demand After Oval Office Meeting
(2) Hamas – Wikipedia Page
(3) Matthew 25:31-46
Friday, May 20, 2011
No One Knows the Day or the Hour…
It’s a busy news day, and I’d rather use today’s blog to retort Obama’s tone-deaf statement that Israel should return to pre-1967 borders. Yet a group of misguided Christians are claiming that Christ is returning tomorrow, and this is, after all Biblical Conservatism, I feel I must dive into this issue instead. (I’ll get after Obama for his Israel speech on Monday.)
As a Christian myself, I believe it would be wonderful if Jesus did return tomorrow, and I do believe that Christ is returning for His Church soon. That being said, I’ve also read the Bible. First some reference verses dealing with Rapture of the Church:
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” – 1 Corinthians 15:51-54
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words. – 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18
Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. - Revelation 3:10-12
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. – Matthew 24:29-31
Yes, I believe the Rapture is an established Biblical truth and that Jesus Christ will one day return for His Church. I also believe He will come BEFORE the Last Days, also known as the Great Tribulation, to remove His followers from the Earth so that they would be protected, (Revelation Chapters 4-19) which is prophesied in Revelation. Believe me, no one would LOVE to think that Jesus is coming back tomorrow more than me. Yet I also know the entire Bible, in context, of these scriptures. Specifically.
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. - Matthew 24:36
And again in Mark:
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. - Mark 13:32-33
Nobody knows the day or the hour. That is the Biblical truth of the timing of the Rapture. In fact, Mark’s Gospel states that even Jesus Christ Himself does not know when He will return for His Church, but only the Father! According to the Bible, Jesus is in Heaven waiting for the Father to tell Him “time to go get Your Church.” The Bible states unequivocally that it nobody knows the day or the hour that Christ will return.
Claiming to know the date or year of Christ’s return is not new. Author Edgar C. Whisenant (1) wrote a book called 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988. When the rapture didn’t happen in 1988, the next year he published The Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989. Guess what? No rapture either year (duh). If the rapture had been in 1988, we’d be in year 16 of Christ’s Millennial Kingdom on Earth (Revelation 20:1-6) or year 15 of Christ’s Millennial Kingdom if the rapture happened in 1989. Whisenant then waited another four years before proving how full of it he truly was by releasing 23 Reasons Why a Pre-Tribulation Rapture looks like it will Occur on Rosh-Hashanah 1993. At least that time he hedged his bets and went with “looks like” instead of making a full prediction.
Now please don’t misunderstand me: It’s not impossible that Christ could return Saturday, May 21, 2011. I would no more assume that it wasn’t any particular day than I would assume it was certainly a particular day. Again, no one knows the day or the hour! It is not for me or for you to know. Here is what is for us to know. For the Christians, we have an assignment.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. - Matthew 28:19-20
Don’t worry about the actual date of Christ’s return. We have a job to do. I believe the signs of the End Times surround us. There are many around us who don’t know the Lord. We have been blessed to know the truth. We are commanded to spread the Good News of the wonderful gift of salvation we’ve been given!
To those who do not know the Lord, well, I have something to say to you as well. I was once in your shoes. I was lost in my own sin. And every one of us has sinned. As the Bible says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and, “There is none righteous, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10 ) Unfortunately, as the Word says, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 5:8a) Wages. Wages are the deserved payment for ones actions. In our employment, wages are our deserved reward. In life, the wages of our sin is death. Every single one of us has failed. Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe, is a just God. He is holy, and cannot allow sin into His presence.
If the story ended here, it would indeed be a sad story. We as humans are imperfect, we are incapable of not sinning on our own. Perhaps you think you aren’t a sinner, that you are a good person, because you have never killed anyone or cheated on your spouse. The Bible tells us otherwise. Ask yourself this: Have you ever stolen anything? Even something small? Even if you’ve once took a cookie from the cookie jar when your parents said no, you’ve broken the 8th Commandment by stealing. By God’s standard, that makes you a thief. Have you ever lied? If you’ve ever lied, you’ve broken the 9th Commandment by bearing false witness. By God’s standard, that makes you a liar. Here’s the really tough one. The Bible says that a person who looks upon a woman (or a man) with lust in their eye, they have committed adultery in their heart. If you’ve ever lusted after another person, you have broken the 7th Commandment and committed adultery. By God’s standard, that makes you an adulterer. So by God’s standard, you’re a thieving, lying, adulterer.
I’ll be very honest with you. I’ve done all three of those things, more than once. Before Jesus saved me, I was lost in my sin too. I have some very good news for you though…even though you are unable to stop sinning, and even though you are unable to pay the debt owed for your sin, someone else already paid for your sin for you! Jesus Christ, the Son of God and your Creator, came to Earth and He took your penalty upon Himself. Jesus went to the cross and was crucified for your sin and for my sin so that, as the most famous verse in the whole Bible says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Jesus took our penalty. He paid for our sin by coming to Earth, living a sinless life, and then allowing Himself to be crucified as a sacrifice for our sin.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. – Romans 5:6-11
I encourage you, if you have not been saved by the free gift of the blood of Jesus Christ, the gift is being offered to you. Put your faith in Jesus and accept the free gift of salvation He is offering you! As the Word says:
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. – Romans 10:9-10
It’s that simple. Believe in your heart that Jesus is the Christ that He died for your sins and rose again as He promised He would and confess it with your mouth, you will be saved! Just believe and receive, then follow Jesus. Come to Jesus, I implore you. The Bible says that no one knows the day or the hour that Christ will return, but He is returning for His Church and I believe soon. Whether I’ve met you or not, I want to see you in Heaven, and more importantly, Jesus Christ who died for your sins on the cross, loves you and wants to spend eternity with you! Run to Him, and He will save you. The gift is free, if you’ll just say yes!
That, my friends, is the Gospel of truth. Jesus Christ is coming back for His Church. It might be tomorrow…it might be in ten years. It might be in a hundred years. You may live to see it, and I pray you see it as a Christian, that you might be one of those who Jesus comes back for before the Tribulation. If you don’t live to see the return of Jesus, still, you will have the blessed assurance that, though your earthly body may die, your soul will be with Jesus in Paradise and He will raise you up on the Last Day. Jesus is calling you. He wants to save you. Will you let Him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Edgar C. Whisenant
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
As a Christian myself, I believe it would be wonderful if Jesus did return tomorrow, and I do believe that Christ is returning for His Church soon. That being said, I’ve also read the Bible. First some reference verses dealing with Rapture of the Church:
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” – 1 Corinthians 15:51-54
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words. – 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18
Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown. - Revelation 3:10-12
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. – Matthew 24:29-31
Yes, I believe the Rapture is an established Biblical truth and that Jesus Christ will one day return for His Church. I also believe He will come BEFORE the Last Days, also known as the Great Tribulation, to remove His followers from the Earth so that they would be protected, (Revelation Chapters 4-19) which is prophesied in Revelation. Believe me, no one would LOVE to think that Jesus is coming back tomorrow more than me. Yet I also know the entire Bible, in context, of these scriptures. Specifically.
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. - Matthew 24:36
And again in Mark:
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is. - Mark 13:32-33
Nobody knows the day or the hour. That is the Biblical truth of the timing of the Rapture. In fact, Mark’s Gospel states that even Jesus Christ Himself does not know when He will return for His Church, but only the Father! According to the Bible, Jesus is in Heaven waiting for the Father to tell Him “time to go get Your Church.” The Bible states unequivocally that it nobody knows the day or the hour that Christ will return.
Claiming to know the date or year of Christ’s return is not new. Author Edgar C. Whisenant (1) wrote a book called 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988. When the rapture didn’t happen in 1988, the next year he published The Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989. Guess what? No rapture either year (duh). If the rapture had been in 1988, we’d be in year 16 of Christ’s Millennial Kingdom on Earth (Revelation 20:1-6) or year 15 of Christ’s Millennial Kingdom if the rapture happened in 1989. Whisenant then waited another four years before proving how full of it he truly was by releasing 23 Reasons Why a Pre-Tribulation Rapture looks like it will Occur on Rosh-Hashanah 1993. At least that time he hedged his bets and went with “looks like” instead of making a full prediction.
Now please don’t misunderstand me: It’s not impossible that Christ could return Saturday, May 21, 2011. I would no more assume that it wasn’t any particular day than I would assume it was certainly a particular day. Again, no one knows the day or the hour! It is not for me or for you to know. Here is what is for us to know. For the Christians, we have an assignment.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. - Matthew 28:19-20
Don’t worry about the actual date of Christ’s return. We have a job to do. I believe the signs of the End Times surround us. There are many around us who don’t know the Lord. We have been blessed to know the truth. We are commanded to spread the Good News of the wonderful gift of salvation we’ve been given!
To those who do not know the Lord, well, I have something to say to you as well. I was once in your shoes. I was lost in my own sin. And every one of us has sinned. As the Bible says, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and, “There is none righteous, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10 ) Unfortunately, as the Word says, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 5:8a) Wages. Wages are the deserved payment for ones actions. In our employment, wages are our deserved reward. In life, the wages of our sin is death. Every single one of us has failed. Jesus Christ, the Creator of the Universe, is a just God. He is holy, and cannot allow sin into His presence.
If the story ended here, it would indeed be a sad story. We as humans are imperfect, we are incapable of not sinning on our own. Perhaps you think you aren’t a sinner, that you are a good person, because you have never killed anyone or cheated on your spouse. The Bible tells us otherwise. Ask yourself this: Have you ever stolen anything? Even something small? Even if you’ve once took a cookie from the cookie jar when your parents said no, you’ve broken the 8th Commandment by stealing. By God’s standard, that makes you a thief. Have you ever lied? If you’ve ever lied, you’ve broken the 9th Commandment by bearing false witness. By God’s standard, that makes you a liar. Here’s the really tough one. The Bible says that a person who looks upon a woman (or a man) with lust in their eye, they have committed adultery in their heart. If you’ve ever lusted after another person, you have broken the 7th Commandment and committed adultery. By God’s standard, that makes you an adulterer. So by God’s standard, you’re a thieving, lying, adulterer.
I’ll be very honest with you. I’ve done all three of those things, more than once. Before Jesus saved me, I was lost in my sin too. I have some very good news for you though…even though you are unable to stop sinning, and even though you are unable to pay the debt owed for your sin, someone else already paid for your sin for you! Jesus Christ, the Son of God and your Creator, came to Earth and He took your penalty upon Himself. Jesus went to the cross and was crucified for your sin and for my sin so that, as the most famous verse in the whole Bible says, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) Jesus took our penalty. He paid for our sin by coming to Earth, living a sinless life, and then allowing Himself to be crucified as a sacrifice for our sin.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. – Romans 5:6-11
I encourage you, if you have not been saved by the free gift of the blood of Jesus Christ, the gift is being offered to you. Put your faith in Jesus and accept the free gift of salvation He is offering you! As the Word says:
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. – Romans 10:9-10
It’s that simple. Believe in your heart that Jesus is the Christ that He died for your sins and rose again as He promised He would and confess it with your mouth, you will be saved! Just believe and receive, then follow Jesus. Come to Jesus, I implore you. The Bible says that no one knows the day or the hour that Christ will return, but He is returning for His Church and I believe soon. Whether I’ve met you or not, I want to see you in Heaven, and more importantly, Jesus Christ who died for your sins on the cross, loves you and wants to spend eternity with you! Run to Him, and He will save you. The gift is free, if you’ll just say yes!
That, my friends, is the Gospel of truth. Jesus Christ is coming back for His Church. It might be tomorrow…it might be in ten years. It might be in a hundred years. You may live to see it, and I pray you see it as a Christian, that you might be one of those who Jesus comes back for before the Tribulation. If you don’t live to see the return of Jesus, still, you will have the blessed assurance that, though your earthly body may die, your soul will be with Jesus in Paradise and He will raise you up on the Last Day. Jesus is calling you. He wants to save you. Will you let Him?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Edgar C. Whisenant
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Despite the Left’s Best Efforts, Here Comes Sarah Palin
0In the past week, both Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump announced they would not seek the Republican Nomination for the Presidency, while Newt Gingrich officially announced his candidacy. The field is starting to take shape. Yet those of you who read Biblical Conservatism regularly know, my personal top choice hasn't made an official decision, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
As I have discussed in a post that remained one of the most popular in the brief history of this blog (1), I believe the Left has shown us just how much they fear Sarah Palin. They've spent close to three years now trying to tear her down. It's not working. Many have speculated that Palin will get into the 2012 Republican fray. Those who have heard her speak without the Drive-By Media playing "gotcha" with her find her to be an intelligent, well spoken, principled Conservative with real values who has the experience and the fortitude to do the right things for the country.
She has yet to announce whether or not she is going to run for President, her numbers with Republicans are actually quite strong. As a person who has not even declared herself a candidate, she is currently in 2nd place amongst GOP prospective candidates in a Gallup Poll published on Tuesday. (2) In that poll 18% of Republicans named Palin their choice for Republican nominee out of a field of 10 candidates and prospective candidates. Only Mitt Romney polled higher at 20% (and that is within the poll's margin for error.)
Further analysis shows that Palin is the most recognizable candidate among the field, being recognized by 96% of those polled (what rock the other 4% of Republicans spent the last three years under is beyond me). Also, she has the third highest positive intensity score, behind only fellow Tea Party darlings Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain. On a side note, it's interesting to me that the 3 most favorably viewed individuals are the three who are the straight shooters who aren't afraid to go toe to toe with Barrack Obama on his Liberal Socialist policies.
Yesterday I discussed the "tells" that the Media is giving to show us how weak Obama's re-election prospects are in 2012. I've said before that the Left shows how afraid they are of particular candidates not by the people who they state aloud who they fear but by whom they go to the mat to tear down. The Drive-By Media has put more effort into tearing down Sarah Palin than any other Republican, period. They've gone after her harder than they went after George W. Bush, for crying out loud! Through it all, she has stayed strong and stuck to her guns. She has become much stronger in her public discourse than she was in 2008. Anyone who saw her speech to a Tea Party rally several weeks back knows that she's ready for a fight, whether that be as a candidate or as a supporter. (3)
Some believe the Drive-By Media when they say Palin can't win. I, for one, believe what Rush Limbaugh said a couple months ago, and I quote (as best my memory recalls), "She will mop the floor with Obama." I could not agree more. Palin will not be afraid to go after Obama on his record, on his ridiculous spending, on the 9.2% unemployment, on the $4 per gallon gas and Obama's lack of an energy policy to solve that problem. She is rhetorically very candid. She tells it like it is without spin or filler. She is the perfect answer to Obama, who is nothing but spin and filler. She has run a business, so she knows how to create jobs (hint: the answer isn't more government). The business she ran was the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, so she understands the implications and necessities of responsible oil drilling. She was also the governor of Alaska, which is one of our nation's top oil producing states.
Some say Palin is too polarizing. I ask this: What would you call Obama? Uniting? The Drive-Bys keep showing cooked polls that say huge numbers of Republicans wouldn't vote for Palin. Right…so we're supposed to believe RINOs would rather have Obama? Not likely. One of the things that define a RINO is a person who votes for the person with the (R) next to their name. As I've said numerous times before, the Drive-Bys and the Democrats are terrified of Palin as a Presidential nominee. Fully 42% of Americans call themselves Conservative. (4) If she convinces 1/3 of the people who call themselves Moderates, (a mere 11% of voters) she would defeat Obama if he gets all the Liberals and 2/3 of Moderates. For the record, that's a very generous expectation for a President who has terrible approval numbers.
I realize Palin has not declared her candidacy and has stated that she is still considering the possibility as recently as last night on Sean Hannity's show. That's what makes this showing impressive. She isn't campaigning officially, she hasn't even announced her candidacy, yet she is one of the top ranking potential candidates. The Left tried to tear down Sarah Palin. It failed miserably. So here comes Sarah Palin, whether it be as a candidate or as a supporter. Here's hoping it's as a candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Why the Left FEARS Sarah Palin (Politically Speaking) - Originally Posted on Biblical Conservatism on 1/24/11
- With Huckabee Out, No Clear GOP Front-Runner
- Palin at Tea Party Rally in Wisconsin (Part 1) – Palin at Tea Party Rally in Wisconsin (Part 2)
- In 2010, Conservatives Still Outnumber Moderates, Liberals
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Tells from Media, Obama Show that Obama's in Trouble in 2012
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching and the Republican field has begun to take shape. Predictably, the Media is starting to tell us how strong Obama is and how hard he will be to defeat. Anyone who has looked at an approval poll that has Obama struggling to get to 50% on a regular basis by the most generous measures during a week where he's largely kept out of the limelight should doubt this ascertion tremendously. Furthmore, with unemployment at 9.2% and underemployment at 19.1% (1) not to mention gas prices over $4 per gallon, it is incredibly hard to to believe that Obama is tough to beat.
Actually, he's not going to be tough to beat at all. As a matter of fact, the Media is giving off signs that they're quite concerned that the Obama administration's internal polling speaks quite poorly for Obama. For the record, yes, I'm operating on the demonstrable fact that the mainstream media is indeed Liberally biased. As a matter of fact, as I have stated before, the Drive-By Media is not reporting at all. They are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.
Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why the majority of Americans in 2008 honestly believed, and still believe, that Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house,” when that quote was actually Tina Fey impersonating Palin on Saturday Night Live. While we’re at it, ask yourself why Barrack Obama’s spending decades in Jeremiah Wright’s church while Wright spewed anti-American socialism and yet the media didn’t feel the need to mention that. Sarah Palin taking five years to complete a four year degree, however, due to her working her way through college and needing to take a couple semesters off to save up the money, is something that requires mass media scrutiny. Obama’s many questionable actions were overlooked and buried, but anything that can be used to attack somebody like Palin, including questioning her son Trigg’s parentage, was broadcast easily.
So when the Media starts telling us how unbeatable Obama is going to be, I hear “Obama is very beatable.” When I hear the Media saying, “after Osama Bin Laden was killed, Obama is now very strong on defense,” I hear “Obama is so pathetic on defense that we have to highlight this success that was only possible due to Obama continuing Bush’s policies as a tremendous win for Obama.”
How about the Media calling the raid to kill Bin Laden “gutsy?” In reality, the decision between going to get Bin Laden or not once we had a location on him was as easy as the decision between whether you should play golf on a sunny Saturday afternoon or lock yourself in a cage with a starving wild lion. I would take absolutely the same amount of guts to make the decision that playing golf is the better of those two choices. As a matter of fact, if Obama hadn’t gotten Bin Laden when he had the opportunity, he would have been politically dead once that news got out that he could have captured or killed Bin Laden and chose not to do it.
Yet the Media wants us to believe that the decision to capture Bin Laden was as difficult as Abraham Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and Harry Truman’s decision to use the atom bomb in Japan combined. It’s an exaggeration that makes the time my Mom told me that the peanut butter and jelly sandwich I made her for her birthday when I was seven was the most delicious meal she had ever eaten seem reasonable. (Of course, that was a mother being sweet to her son. Love you Mom!)
While we’re at it, the Drive-By Media has started to tell us the candidates they think would be the strongest, and as usual, they’re the wishy-washy moderates. Anyone else remember the time they told that John McCain was the best candidate the Republicans could put up and how he’d be a shoo-in for the Presidency? How’d that work out for us? Or when they told us that Bob Dole was a great candidate who could really give Bill Clinton a run for his money? The Drive-Bys aren’t looking to do the Republican Party any favors. They’re trying to hand pick a weak opponent.
Nothing against Mitch Daniels, but the guy is getting a whopping 3% in the Republican polls. (2) He’s a borderline RINO who doesn’t inspire loyalty and excitement in anyone, save for a few dozen people in Indiana. Yet the Drive-Bys are telling us how he's the candidate Obama is really concerned about.
Whether or not you’re a fan of either, people like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain inspire loyalty and excite Conservatives. Even someone like Newt Gingrich, if he can stay out of his own way, is someone with real Conservative credentials. Regardless of what the Drive-By Media is proclaiming, the 2010 election was a rejection of Obama and of socialism. The reason the Republicans run the House of Representatives is because of the Tea Party giving America a real choice.
Put it all together and you’ve got the media telling us how unbeatable Obama is despite 9.2% unemployment, $4 per gallon gas and rampant inflation. Then they’re telling us how we should run a wishy-washy moderate who doesn’t inspire anyone. It doesn’t take a great poker player to pick up a twitch. The Media is lying to convince America how unbeatable Obama is so that the GOP will forfeit the 2012 election. Only if the GOP forfeits will Obama be tough to beat. So here’s the truth. Obama’s imminently beatable. The Drive-By Media is a solid ally, so he’s not beaten yet. To use a baseball analogy, it’s the bottom of the sixth inning, we’re at home, and we’ve got a two run lead. We know it. So does the Drive-By Media, and does does the White House. They’re telling us they’re scared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 9.2% in Mid-May
(2) Rasmussen GOP Poll
Actually, he's not going to be tough to beat at all. As a matter of fact, the Media is giving off signs that they're quite concerned that the Obama administration's internal polling speaks quite poorly for Obama. For the record, yes, I'm operating on the demonstrable fact that the mainstream media is indeed Liberally biased. As a matter of fact, as I have stated before, the Drive-By Media is not reporting at all. They are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.
Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why the majority of Americans in 2008 honestly believed, and still believe, that Sarah Palin said “I can see Russia from my house,” when that quote was actually Tina Fey impersonating Palin on Saturday Night Live. While we’re at it, ask yourself why Barrack Obama’s spending decades in Jeremiah Wright’s church while Wright spewed anti-American socialism and yet the media didn’t feel the need to mention that. Sarah Palin taking five years to complete a four year degree, however, due to her working her way through college and needing to take a couple semesters off to save up the money, is something that requires mass media scrutiny. Obama’s many questionable actions were overlooked and buried, but anything that can be used to attack somebody like Palin, including questioning her son Trigg’s parentage, was broadcast easily.
So when the Media starts telling us how unbeatable Obama is going to be, I hear “Obama is very beatable.” When I hear the Media saying, “after Osama Bin Laden was killed, Obama is now very strong on defense,” I hear “Obama is so pathetic on defense that we have to highlight this success that was only possible due to Obama continuing Bush’s policies as a tremendous win for Obama.”
How about the Media calling the raid to kill Bin Laden “gutsy?” In reality, the decision between going to get Bin Laden or not once we had a location on him was as easy as the decision between whether you should play golf on a sunny Saturday afternoon or lock yourself in a cage with a starving wild lion. I would take absolutely the same amount of guts to make the decision that playing golf is the better of those two choices. As a matter of fact, if Obama hadn’t gotten Bin Laden when he had the opportunity, he would have been politically dead once that news got out that he could have captured or killed Bin Laden and chose not to do it.
Yet the Media wants us to believe that the decision to capture Bin Laden was as difficult as Abraham Lincoln’s decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and Harry Truman’s decision to use the atom bomb in Japan combined. It’s an exaggeration that makes the time my Mom told me that the peanut butter and jelly sandwich I made her for her birthday when I was seven was the most delicious meal she had ever eaten seem reasonable. (Of course, that was a mother being sweet to her son. Love you Mom!)
While we’re at it, the Drive-By Media has started to tell us the candidates they think would be the strongest, and as usual, they’re the wishy-washy moderates. Anyone else remember the time they told that John McCain was the best candidate the Republicans could put up and how he’d be a shoo-in for the Presidency? How’d that work out for us? Or when they told us that Bob Dole was a great candidate who could really give Bill Clinton a run for his money? The Drive-Bys aren’t looking to do the Republican Party any favors. They’re trying to hand pick a weak opponent.
Nothing against Mitch Daniels, but the guy is getting a whopping 3% in the Republican polls. (2) He’s a borderline RINO who doesn’t inspire loyalty and excitement in anyone, save for a few dozen people in Indiana. Yet the Drive-Bys are telling us how he's the candidate Obama is really concerned about.
Whether or not you’re a fan of either, people like Sarah Palin and Herman Cain inspire loyalty and excite Conservatives. Even someone like Newt Gingrich, if he can stay out of his own way, is someone with real Conservative credentials. Regardless of what the Drive-By Media is proclaiming, the 2010 election was a rejection of Obama and of socialism. The reason the Republicans run the House of Representatives is because of the Tea Party giving America a real choice.
Put it all together and you’ve got the media telling us how unbeatable Obama is despite 9.2% unemployment, $4 per gallon gas and rampant inflation. Then they’re telling us how we should run a wishy-washy moderate who doesn’t inspire anyone. It doesn’t take a great poker player to pick up a twitch. The Media is lying to convince America how unbeatable Obama is so that the GOP will forfeit the 2012 election. Only if the GOP forfeits will Obama be tough to beat. So here’s the truth. Obama’s imminently beatable. The Drive-By Media is a solid ally, so he’s not beaten yet. To use a baseball analogy, it’s the bottom of the sixth inning, we’re at home, and we’ve got a two run lead. We know it. So does the Drive-By Media, and does does the White House. They’re telling us they’re scared.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 9.2% in Mid-May
(2) Rasmussen GOP Poll
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
On Self Defense: Conservatism Works in Reality, Liberalism Does Not
Perhaps you've had this discussion with a Liberal: What would you do if you are in a store and a person enters, points a gun, and announces his intent to shoot people. He's not there to rob the place. His plan is to take out some kind of revenge on a society that, in his mind, has done him wrong. As a Conservative, perhaps you exercise your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms and have a legally purchased and licensed hand gun concealed on your person. You suggest to your Liberal friend that this gun gives you the ability to stop this crazy person before he harms another person, probably by shooting them first. After all, it's him or us, right?
If your Liberal friends are anything like mine, they will tell you how horrible that would be of you. You ask your Liberal friend what they would do. Predictably, your Liberal friend says that they would try to talk the gunman out of his plan, perhaps by showing them compassion of some sort. What is amazing to me is the fact that Liberals, at least the Neighborhood Liberals, truly believe this would work! It's astounding, honestly, to think that a person who is legitimately out of their mind and intent on murder, would be talked out of it by someone nicely asking them to stop.
This attitude is the inevitable result of decades of Liberals not allowing the smallest of school yard scraps and telling children "fighting is never the answer." Even at the school yard level, I've seen how this mindset fails. In my own school experiences, I was told that, if a person attacks you, regardless of whether or not you provoked them, I should not fight back. Instead, I was told that I should simply let them hit me until someone came and broke it up. I was once told that I should not have fought back when, in junior high, someone hit me in the face with the handle of a lacross stick.
Thankfully, my parents did not subscribe to the school's mentality. My father taught me to do my best to walk away and avoid violence. Dad taught me not to throw the first punch and to do my best to resolve those conflicts without fighting. However, my Dad also taught me that if a person took a swing at me, at that point I had the right to defend myself. That was how I was raised: avoid fighting as much as you can, but when someone attacks you, don't let them. For the record, in the aforementioned lacross stick incident, I tried to walk away up until the point this person physically attacked me. I fought back to stop this person from harming me further. (Translation: I decked the guy in the face and laid him out.) I did not want to fight him, and I did my best to avoid it. But once he struck me, I defended myself.
The Bible backs up this mentality:
A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.
Proverbs 25:26
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. Exodus 22:2
So the Word tells us not to falter before the wicked and even says that if a thief is killed while breaking into a house then the defender is not guilty. (Please note this self defense freedom only lasts during the burglary. If the homeowner harms the burglar the next day, aside from the process of bringing that person to legal justice, it becomes murder.) How much moreso if one is defending his own life? God does not tell us to try to "talk it out" with those who are trying to do us harm. He tells us we are within our rights to defend ourselves and our property if we or our property are being attacked.
Furthermore, the idea that you can reason with a school yard bully, much less a madman with a gun who is willing to kill innocent people, much less an evil tin-pot dictator who keeps his own people in secret prisons and murders them if they are even perceived as a threat to their power, is absolutely foolish. This sort of people will laugh and continue their violence in the face of "rational dialouge." What does work is stopping them physically so that they cannot harm you or another.
If it takes using a legally purchased gun to stop a crazy person from shooting ten other people, my response is "BAM," and if necessary "BAM BAM BAM BAM." That will stop innocent people from being hurt. "Are you sure you really want to hurt us? Don't you want to have a discussion about what's really bothering you" at best causes the villain in our story to tell our kindhearted Liberal friend to shut up, and at worst it gets our kindhearted Liberal friend killed.
Once again, Conservatism and our self-defense mentality, whether it be with our hands or with a legally purchased gun, works. The Liberal mentality does nothing at best, gets people hurt at works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
If your Liberal friends are anything like mine, they will tell you how horrible that would be of you. You ask your Liberal friend what they would do. Predictably, your Liberal friend says that they would try to talk the gunman out of his plan, perhaps by showing them compassion of some sort. What is amazing to me is the fact that Liberals, at least the Neighborhood Liberals, truly believe this would work! It's astounding, honestly, to think that a person who is legitimately out of their mind and intent on murder, would be talked out of it by someone nicely asking them to stop.
This attitude is the inevitable result of decades of Liberals not allowing the smallest of school yard scraps and telling children "fighting is never the answer." Even at the school yard level, I've seen how this mindset fails. In my own school experiences, I was told that, if a person attacks you, regardless of whether or not you provoked them, I should not fight back. Instead, I was told that I should simply let them hit me until someone came and broke it up. I was once told that I should not have fought back when, in junior high, someone hit me in the face with the handle of a lacross stick.
Thankfully, my parents did not subscribe to the school's mentality. My father taught me to do my best to walk away and avoid violence. Dad taught me not to throw the first punch and to do my best to resolve those conflicts without fighting. However, my Dad also taught me that if a person took a swing at me, at that point I had the right to defend myself. That was how I was raised: avoid fighting as much as you can, but when someone attacks you, don't let them. For the record, in the aforementioned lacross stick incident, I tried to walk away up until the point this person physically attacked me. I fought back to stop this person from harming me further. (Translation: I decked the guy in the face and laid him out.) I did not want to fight him, and I did my best to avoid it. But once he struck me, I defended myself.
The Bible backs up this mentality:
A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.
Proverbs 25:26
If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. Exodus 22:2
So the Word tells us not to falter before the wicked and even says that if a thief is killed while breaking into a house then the defender is not guilty. (Please note this self defense freedom only lasts during the burglary. If the homeowner harms the burglar the next day, aside from the process of bringing that person to legal justice, it becomes murder.) How much moreso if one is defending his own life? God does not tell us to try to "talk it out" with those who are trying to do us harm. He tells us we are within our rights to defend ourselves and our property if we or our property are being attacked.
Furthermore, the idea that you can reason with a school yard bully, much less a madman with a gun who is willing to kill innocent people, much less an evil tin-pot dictator who keeps his own people in secret prisons and murders them if they are even perceived as a threat to their power, is absolutely foolish. This sort of people will laugh and continue their violence in the face of "rational dialouge." What does work is stopping them physically so that they cannot harm you or another.
If it takes using a legally purchased gun to stop a crazy person from shooting ten other people, my response is "BAM," and if necessary "BAM BAM BAM BAM." That will stop innocent people from being hurt. "Are you sure you really want to hurt us? Don't you want to have a discussion about what's really bothering you" at best causes the villain in our story to tell our kindhearted Liberal friend to shut up, and at worst it gets our kindhearted Liberal friend killed.
Once again, Conservatism and our self-defense mentality, whether it be with our hands or with a legally purchased gun, works. The Liberal mentality does nothing at best, gets people hurt at works.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson,
Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Monday, May 16, 2011
House GOP Tries to Solve Gas Prices while Obama Panders
At the end of last week, the Republican lead House of Representatives passed three bills which would end President Obama's moratorium on deep water drilling off the American shores. As I discussed months ago, the President's executive order was voided months ago. (1) In the aftermath, Obama then issued a new moratorium, which lead to the President being declared in contempt of court. Unfortunately, this ban remains in place, thanks to the President's need to pander to his Leftwing radical environmentalist base. The result has been increasingly high gas prices. With his usual political decisiveness (so none) the President is trying very hard to ride two horses with one rear end.
Thus far, the President's solution has been to talk up nonexistent "green energy" that is neither practical nor ready for mass scale use, allowing him to do ostensibly nothing, save for set piles of money on fire to research these pie in the sky solutions. (2) He also claimed that the problem isn't lack of supply, citing that our refineries are at capacity. Unfortunately, the most basic of Economic laws, supply and demand, flies in the face of Obama's speeches. The truth remains that when you add supply of a product into the marketplace and demand remains the same (which, save for minor fluctuations for summer travel season, it does) the price goes down.
The President of course backs this up with pretending environmental awareness. Unfortunately, truth gets out of the way Obama's politics. The reality is the oil has already been completely cleaned up, thanks to one of God's wonderful designs: oil eating bacteria. Yep, God designed this planet to be self-healing, just like He designed our bodies to be self-healing. If you've ever had a cold, chances are you don't have it now, right? (Or if you still have it, in 3-5 days you won't have it). The reality is the Earth takes care of itself and heals itself. Our oil drilling is responsible, and there is no reason to stop it. Obama can't admit this, however, because it would mean dropping the Liberal excuse of environmental awareness to control other people's lives.
Now the Republican House has decided enough is enough, time for real solutions. So they passed three resolutions reversing Obama's moratorium and promoting further drilling and exploration. We know from history that even beginning the process to increase supply causes oil speculators to stop speculating the prices up and start speculating the prices down. We saw this in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when President Bush opened up deep water drilling offshore. Gas prices dropped like a stone from over $4 per gallon to well under $2 per gallon. They stayed there until Obama and his foolish policies got into the game, making it harder to obtain drilling permits and ultimately stopping all deep water drilling. Here we are, back at $4 per gallon gasoline.
So Obama releases a solution that he claims will help with the problem. (3) Yet as you scour the news articles, you find that all the President is proposing is the extension of existing leases and "more frequent" lease sales for a Federal petroleum reserve in Alaska. For the record extending existing leases won't do anything more than maintain the status quo. Granted, by not renewing those leases would cause the prices to rise even more, but with the price already at a budget breaking $4 a gallon, that's simply avoiding further damage to the economy. This doesn't qualify as helping at all. And as far as "more frequent" lease sales, if just one more was allowed per year, it would qualify as "more frequent," would it not? Given Obama's past, such hair splitting is not unexpected.
I don't believe I am alone in the world in not believing a word that comes out of Obama's mouth. Everything policy has been designed with the ultimate goal being serving Obama's personal best interests. After nearly two and a half years of Obama, I know him like the sound of my own mother's voice. This will turn out to be absolutely nothing more than political posturing. Obama won't do any significant increase in oil drilling. Rather, he is doing his best to pretend he is trying to increase supply while not actually increasing supply. The goal, I'll bet, is to claim that he tried increasing supply (while actually keeping it level) and it didn't reduce gas prices.
Between claiming an increase in supply (falsely) and holding kangaroo court hearings to "sniff out fraud and price gauging," Obama can blame everything but his own bad policies and play class warfare in the process by demonizing the "evil" oil companies. The truth is Obama is doing precisely zero to help reduce oil and gas prices while claiming he is ramping up production. It is pure sophistry, worse yet, it's a pure lie. Obama is telling lies to get re-elected. The country can darn well deal with it, because nothing matters to Barrack Obama but Barrack Obama. Obama doesn't care a lick if we can't afford to pay more and more for gas because all that matters is Obama getting re-elected.
I for one have had enough of the lies and the political games. I lived through eight years of Clinton doing it, and Clinton was willing to not stand in the way of Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress doing positive things for the country. See Clinton was a narcissist but he wasn't an ideologue. Obama makes Clinton look like Reagan, because Obama is both a narcissist and an ideologue. So not only is he only concerned with himself, but he also is rigidly supporting radical Leftwing policies. This latest move by Obama is another example.
The House Republicans, on the other hand, are presenting real solutions. They are trying to increase supply and cause the speculators to speculate DOWN instead of up. They are offering real solutions. Liberals are trying to tear down the valid solutions of the GOP by claiming bias and cronyism. The truth is a good decision is a good decision. As I have demonstrated before, bias doesn't offset facts. For that matter, Liberals will tell you that the Republicans only support the oil companies because they are donors and supporters of the Republican Party. Actually, the reverse is true. Corporations support Republicans because Republicans promote policies that are in their best interests. Those policies, however, are also best for the country as a whole.
Lower priced oil and gas is a plus for everyone. It's a plus for the oil companies, who can now produce products for less which creates a chain of causation that lowers the cost of doing business, allowing them to spend more on research and development, which allows them to offer better products and expand their business. It also means lower costs for consumers, which means more money in the budget for American families, money that can be spent on other things. Once the necessities are paid for, consumers are able to spend money by going to restaurants, vacations, buying newer cars, buying homest, etc. Also, lower costs to businesses and ramped up production means an economic climate which allows people to open new businesses. This leads to new jobs and the positive cycle continues.
Conservatism is the home of good ideas and historically successful ideas. Liberalism is the home of bad and historically failed ideas. That's why Conservatives talk about successes of policies and Liberals simply talk about laws passed. This is yet another example of Obama trying to do nothing and claim credit for something.
Obama must absolutely be defeated in 2012. Thankfully, the best weapon we have against Obama is Obama. I firmly believe Foghorn Leghorn could beat Obama in 2012. See, the hole in Obama's strategy is the fact that $4 per gallon gas prices will cause people to not vote for him. So will 10% unemployment. Obama is heading for a loss in 2012. Nothing he has done will improve the economy. And it won't improve the economy in the next 18 months before the 2012 election. These policies are facades intended to claim attempting to help without actually helping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Barrack Obama: The Unconstitutional President
(2) Green Energy: Another Liberal Pie in the Sky Lie
(3) With Gas Prices Soaring, Obama Looks to Ramp Up U.S. Oil Production
Friday, May 13, 2011
Same Cooked AP Poll - Claims Americans More Upbeat about Economy
Thursday, the Associated Press released another story based on the same cooked poll that claimed Obama had a 60% approval rating. This time they're claiming that over 43% of Americans believe the country is now on the right track. (1) Guess what, folks...IT'S THE SAME BAD POLL! The same poll that so many sources showed to be bogus, including this blog, also claims that 43% of Americans now see the country is now on the right track.
Let's review the breakdown one more time of this poll. Once again, thanks to Hot Air for doing great research on this program:
The Dem/Rep/Ind breakdown in this poll is 46/29/4, as AP assigned most of the leaners to the parties. That is a 17-point gap, more than twice what was seen in the 2008 actual popular vote that elected Obama. It only gets worse when independents are assigned properly. When taking out the leaners, the split becomes — I’m not kidding — 35/18/27. Oh, and another 20% “don’t know.” (3)
Yep. So once again, if you ask a group that's ridiculously skewed Democrat, then skewed Independent, then finally ask an occasional Republican, you hear that 43% of people think the country is on the right track. Not to mention, once again, this is "adults," half of whom aren't registered to vote and thus have no say over the political direction of the country. So let's attempt to give a comparison to other polls.
Unfortunately, neither of the two most reliable polls, Gallup and Rasmussen, have up-to-date polls on this subject. Gallup doesn't regularly poll the direction of the country. Rasmussen's last sample is two weeks old. So I'm going to have to use other polls. For the purpose of this excercise, I'll use the Real Clear Politics average.
For those of you not familiar with RCP, they do not conduct their own polls. Rather, they attempt to gain a best possible consensus by averaging all available polls. In their most recent average, RCP shows that 32.8% of Americans think the country is on the right track, while 59.2% says the country is on the wrong track. (4) Mind you, that number INCLUDES the bad AP poll in it's average!
The next highest number is Reuters/Ipsos, which has the right track number at 38% and the wrong track at 56% (5). That's a full 5% difference between the most generous poll over AP's! So what does the RCP average become when you eliminate that bad AP poll? You get 30% right track, 60% wrong track! AP wants you to believe that the a full 13% of people believe that the country is on the right track over the average of the other five polls in the RCP average.
It's actually sad that AP would have the stones to publish this story using a poll that was ripped to shreds from all levels of the new media yesterday, from Rush Limbaugh, to solid internet news sources like Hot Air, all the way down to lowly bloggers like me and everyone in between. This tells us, if nothing else, how stupid the Lamestream Media thinks we are. If this was 1995, they might get away with it. It's 2011, though, and there is a huge new media at all levels. They aren't getting away with this drivel.
As I said yesterday, this is proof how concerned the Left is about Obama's chances. They know what we suspect, he's in deep political doo-doo. Obama is in trouble. Vote for a real Conservative in the primaries, don't believe we need a "moderate." It's our time. Let's go!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) AP-GfK poll: Americans more upbeat about economy
(2) THE AP-GfK POLL May, 2011 - Pg. 41
(3) And the award for the most ridiculous poll sampling goes to …
(4) Real Clear Politics: Direction of the Country
(5) Reuters/Ipsos: Direction of the Country
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)