There has been much said about being your brother’s keeper. but most of all, everyone wants everyone else to be “their brother’s keeper. The president said it repeatedly during the 2008 campaign. A current contemporary Christian song even includes this chorus:
Love, will, hold us together
Make us a shelter
to weather the storm
And I’ll, be, my brothers keeper
So the whole world will know
That we’re not alone
It sounds really good, but what does it mean to be “your brother’s keeper?” Is it necessary to be your brother’s keeper in order to be a good Christian? Was not being his brother’s keeper Cain’s sin? Here is a portion of the exchange Cain had with God:
Genesis 4:5-9 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. (6) And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? (7) If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (8) And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (9) And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
Cain answered God with a lie and a question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” As if the answer to the question was obvious. Abel was a full grown man. In fact, Abel himself was the keeper of the sheep, according to Genesis 4:2. He was the keeper of his sheep. As such, it was his duty to control and provide for the sheep, regulate their diet, their rest, their daily lives. Likewise, a parent is a child’s keeper. This is exactly why we do not want a government to be “our brother’s keeper.” The keeper controls the lives of those kept. Children are kept because they cannot provide for themselves and lack the knowledge to make daily decisions. Sheep are kept because they can never have such knowledge. God does not command us to be our brother’s keeper. People enjoy bashing Cain for that response. But the fact is, he was right. However, he only asked the question in an attempt to redirect God’s attention. God, however, was not deterred, knew where Abel was, and focused like a laser on Cain’s real sin:
Genesis 4:10-11 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. (11) And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;
Cain was a murderer. He was not found guilty of “not being his brother’s keeper,” he was found guilty of murder. This also shows how jealousy bears hate and can produce murder if not repented of and forsaken.
This is why when Obama says ” we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper” he is completely wrong. Neither he nor the government is our keeper, or should be our keeper. To the Christian, God is our keeper. He provides what we cannot (salvation in Jesus Christ), he knows what we do not, and he provides us through his word the rules for living a prosperous and godly life no matter what happens in the world around us. He provided for the Israelites when Egypt was their keeper. He will provide for us if we have the unpleasant experience of the federal government becoming our keeper. His faithfulness in doing so is demonstrated throughout the scriptures in his frustration of the evil plans of tyrants and kings (whether Haman or Nebuchadnezzar or Saul or Jezebel).
Obama, telling how “we are our brothers keeper,” of course its all through the government, a “benevolent, all powerful government, with the power to redistribute wealth to whom it will, and drain it from whom it will. The government is not my family, nor is it my keeper. it is merely supposed to uphold the rule of law, ensure justice and defend our rights and freedoms.
Obama tells you Government is your keeper. The Federal Government needs to give you a job, insurance, education. The government is your keeper…
This artist wants to be your keeper, but he really wants Obama to be all our keepers… :/
The real tragedy of this trial is a that it is a lose-lose.
1. By going to civil court, the rights of the constitution* are bestowed upon non-citizens who attacked us, and freely confessed to doing so. This unconstitutional precedent could be used as a legal basis to grant constitutional rights to illegal immigrants.
2. They have been denied Miranda rights, while being promised all rights. To mix things like this, could set a precedent that “legal” rulings could be reached in a court where a citizen has been denied one or more of their legal rights. Which of your rights would you be willing to have violated and still get a “legal” guilty verdict.
3. This trial is being help up by Team Obama as a shining example of the fairness and impartiality of the US legal system. However, Eric Holder has promised that these people are so guilty that they will never be found innocent, and even if they are acquitted that they will still be held. This in itself is damning in a couple of ways (Mega-dittos go to Rush Limbaugh for opening up this line of thought regarding this show trial):
1. How can it be “fair and impartial” if the verdict is certain? Other countries, and especially the Muslim world will be able to use this as bonafide proof that the US court system is biased, increasing resentment of the US.
2. It will set the precedent that people acquitted from a crime will be able to be held. This must certainly be Obama’s way to bring “prolonged detention” into the legal frame work of the United States.
The way this trial is being conducted the main disaster is not that constitutional rights are being given to non-citizens, but that very dangerous precedents are being set up to deny constitutional rights to Americans.
I hope it is becoming clear to even the most ardent supporters of Obama that he is systematically undermining not only our economic freedoms, but our other Constitutional rights as well. He is grossly violating his oath of office, perjury.
“I will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states of America.” – P. Barack Obama.
Listen to his attack on the literal interpretation of the Constitution intended by our founding fathers when they authored it.
*these are above and beyond basic human rights. No one would argue that human beings deserve basic human rights regardless of citizenship, however, that does not include access to tax payer funded attorneys, the court system, 3 meals, room and board @ tax payer’s expense day in the US prison system, freedom to be given a venue to denounce the US, or Miranda rights.
I am sure that some of you think I march lock-step with the GOP based on the things I have written about Barack Obama and all his sordid associations. However, if you think that, you have missed the point. Especially within the last year, the GOP has shown an abandonment of the professed principles that attracted me to it in the first place: family values, small government, low taxes, free market. However, it has become much more like the Democrat Party. Lets explore what has happened in the GOP, especially from the last months of G.W. Bush up to now.
George W Bush, really got the ball rolling by signing off on the Democratic progressives’ 700 billion dollar TARP fiasco. The government had no business doing that, and G.W. Bush, as a self-professing conservative, had no business signing off on something so grossly unconstitutional.
Michael Steele. Despite the initial excitement over his being named to the GOP chair, he quickly showed his true colors. In a GQ Interview that has since been scrubbed from the GQ website, Steele dug himself into a hole by revealing how he truly feels about conservatism, marriage, and abortion.
Why do you think so few nonwhite Americans support the Republican Party right now?
’Cause we have offered them nothing! And the impression we’ve created is that we don’t give a d**n about them or we just outright don’t like them. And that’s not a healthy thing for a political party. I think the way we’ve talked about immigration, the way we’ve talked about some of the issues that are important to African-Americans, like affirmative action… I mean, you know, having an absolute holier-than-thou attitude about something that’s important to a particular community doesn’t engender confidence in your leadership by that community—or consideration of you for office or other things—because you’ve already given off the vibe that you don’t care. What I’m trying to do now is to say we do give a d**n.
We “offer them nothing?” We “just don’t like them?” Does he think throwing in a curse word makes him trendy? Has Steele fell into the Al Sharpton/Rev Wright/ Barack Obama mindset that conservative thought is inherently racist? It is clear that Steele knows very little about conservatism. True conservatism doesn’t offer handouts, or bribes for votes. What conservatism offers is equality. No one is esteemed above another on account of their race. Race quotas, race preferences, those things say “look, you’re not good enough because your a minority, and we need to give you a bonus so you can stand up against the non-minorities.” That is diametrically opposed to conservatism, which stresses the individual over the collective. Any organization that claims conservatism, while embracing racism, attempts to integrate an alien and evil ideology that subverts the whole claim of conservatism.
Now lets see what he says about homosexuality:
Do you have a problem with gay priests who are celibate?
No, it’s your nature. It’s your nature. You can’t—I can’t deny you your nature.
For a Seminarian, who would presumably have read the scriptures, God has a clear commandment for would-be priests/pastors/reverend:
This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach…(1 Timothy 3:1-2). He would also have known this: “But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26). He would also have been aware of the New Testament condemnation of such behaviors, and that a priest that is “dead in his sins” could never rightly divide the Word of God.
Let’s talk about gay marriage. What’s your position?
Well, my position is, hey, look, I have been, um, supportive of a lot of my friends who are gay in some of the core things that they believe are important to them. You know, the ability to be able to share in the information of your partner, to have the ability to—particularly in times of crisis—to manage their affairs and to help them through that as others—you know, as family members or others—would be able to do. I just draw the line at the gay marriage. And that’s not antigay, no. Heck no! It’s just that, you know, from my faith tradition and upbringing, I believe that marriage—that institution, the sanctity of it—is reserved for a man and a woman. That’s just my view. And I’m not gonna jump up and down and beat people upside the head about it, and tell gays that they’re wrong for wanting to aspire to that, and all of that craziness. That’s why I believe that the states should have an opportunity to address that issue.
Do you think homosexuality is a choice?
Oh, no. I don’t think I’ve ever really subscribed to that view, that you can turn it on and off like a water tap. Um, you know, I think that there’s a whole lot that goes into the makeup of an individual that, uh, you just can’t simply say, oh, like, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being gay.” It’s like saying, “Tomorrow morning I’m gonna stop being black.”
So your feeling would be that people are born one way or another.
I mean, I think that’s the prevailing view at this point, and I know that there’s some out there who think that you can absolutely make that choice. And maybe some people have. I don’t know, I can’t say. Until we can give a definitive answer one way or the other, I think we should respect that.
Steele tossed his “faith tradition” under the bus. Apparently being a man pleaser is more important than being right. To rephrase his answer another way, “I’m not going to let my faith influence my positions.” Sounds a lot like a certain Senator John Kerry, who’s own professed faith played no role in any decisions he made regarding moral matters. He also throws the perverted concept that sexual perversions are the equivalent of race. Race is immutable, sexual preferences can change. His answer to that last question is just a bunch of waffling. There is no consensus that homosexuality is genetic, radical scientists have been searching for it for years.
How about abortion? What does Steele think about that?
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
How so?
You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.
Do you think you’re more welcoming to pro-choice people than Democrats are to pro-lifers?
Now that’s a good question. I would say we are. Because the Democrats wouldn’t allow a pro-lifer to speak at their convention. We’ve had many a pro-choicer speak at ours—long before Rudy Giuliani. So yeah, that’s something I’ve been trying to get our party to appreciate. It’s not just in our words but in our actions, we’ve been a party that’s much more embracing. Even when we have missed the boat on, uh, minority issues, the Bush administration did an enormous amount to advance the individual opportunities for minorities in our country. In housing. In education. In health care.
It is the whole stupid concept of the “big tent” that has condemned the GOP to electoral hades. The party doesn’t claim to stand for anything. Obama and the Democrats are clear where they stand on many issues, even if they are dead wrong. A “big tent” can’t take a stand, a big tent has no choice but to move to the left to pick up the abortionists and the homosexuals and the socialists. Perhaps Steele wasn’t aware that one of the main reasons people were attracted to the GOP is for its professed pro-life stance. So much for “core values and principles,” Steel has chucked those under the bus in his quest to create an ecumenical mush that is incapable of drawing the hard core from the Democrat party, and too perverse to attract the conservative faithful.
The truth about D’s and R’s is this: The Republican party is rapidly selling out its principles and becoming a progressive party, akin to the progressive wing of the Democrat party. If I wanted a liberal candidate, I’d have voted for the progressive democrat. But with party bigwigs like the RNC and Newt Gingrich lining up to endorse and fund Progressives running as Republicans, it looks like you can just vote GOP to get a leftist. With Obama’s progressive appointees worshipping Mao, embracing Islamic Sharia law, and sponsoring gay p!rn, “mere” liberals may look like a better choice. However, the end result will be the same. When a republican receives the Margaret Sanger radical abortionist award, it is time to revoke the conservative credentials of ANYONE who supports, funds or endorses that candidate, regardless of their party affiliation.
All this said, parties labels increasingly mean nothing. It all has to do with positions. Ideologically speaking, liberals embrace change, conservatives preserve the norm. So depending on what is being preserved or changed, either label could be good or bad. With respect to the past, yesterday’s republicans where liberals, in the sense that they opposed tenaciously the establishment of slavery, and sought to change it. So the term “liberal” can be good depending on what kind of change is being sought. Movements towards personal freedoms in china would be liberal in the generic sense. However, on the modern political scene in America, Liberal has come to be associated with a specific set of goals, especially at the federal level. Among them are:
Changing society to embrace abortion as an absolute right
Changing society to embrace homosexuality as beautiful
Changing society to redistribute wealth
Changing society to abhor and abolish private ownership of guns
Change society to accept that government’s duty is to provide everything for its citizens
Change society to believe that profit is evil
Change society to believe religion (Christianity) has no place in the public square
Change society by creating permanent racial divisions, that some are more equal than others
Change society by submerging American exceptionalism and promoting globalist socialism (United Nations)
Changing society by getting citizens to accept outrageous government control (soda tax, carbon tax) out of fear
Changing society by rewarding law breakers (illegal immigrants)
Changing society to believe in a dubious “living constitution” that doesn’t actually mean what it says, but rather, whatever they want it to.
Changing society into a collective, and submerging the individual within it.
John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and every other major progressive Democrat politician supports most, if not all, of the above positions and are thus liberal. However, progressive republican politicians like Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich, Olympia Snowe, DeDe Scozzafava, John McCain and others are increasingly supporting the above statement in a self-centered attempt to grow and strengthen a party structure as opposed to doing what is best for America and her people. Yet both sides of the isle will, when it is beneficial to their own agenda, in many cases parrot a conservative line to deceive the voters into supporting them. President Obama used a good conservative message of self-reliance in the final version of his school speech:
But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.
And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. SOURCE
Basically, the meaning of the conservatism I espouse is this:
Preserving the concept of unborn children’s rights
Preserving the definition of marriage as between a woman and man
Preserving the right of people to keep what they earn legally
Preserving the private ownership of guns, and means of self defense.
Preserving the concept of personal and religious responsibility.
Preserving the right of people to earn a profit and spend or invest it as they desire.
Preserve the notion that America was founded on Christian principles, and that is what made us strong
Preserve the concept that there should be equality, no institutionalized racial preference or deference.
Restore American exceptionalism by getting us out of entangling alliances that are detrimental to our people (the UN)
Preserve American freedom by opposing all punitive taxes and government power grabs (global warming, soda tax)
Restore the concept that law breakers should be punished, not rewarded for their deeds.
Restore the concept of “original intent,” that the constitution means what it says it does, and that it actually guarantees the rights it claims to.
Preserving right of the individual to excel, and guaranteeing equality of opportunity, not outcome
I hope this clarifies my positions on the political parties, and that I do not champion a corrupt and liberal Republican party as a replacement to the corrupt and liberal Democrat regime we currently reside under. I hope you will join me in seeking out and supporting conservative constitutionalists that will uphold the best and highest ideals of the American experiment, and speak out with boldness against radicals- regardless of party affiliation.
Actions speak louder than words. Listen and take heed. The future of our republic is at stake.
Newt teams up with Nancy Pelosi to sell the American people on global “climate change,” which is merely a UN scheme to soak the US for more money and even sovereignty:
1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. (SOURCE: official UN site)
I daresay NO one who was a genuine conservative would sell out the prosperity and sovereignty of the US and her people for anything, let alone the JUNK science of man-caused global warming, er, I mean climate change.
Progressive American politicians know no party lines
this innocuous sounding section seems to be ok at first glance (lines and numbering are lifted directly from the bill).
INSURANCE RATING RULES.
22 (b) STUDY AND REPORTS.—
23 (1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordina
24tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Serv
25ices and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a
26 study of the large group insured and self-insured
1 employer health care markets. Such study shall ex
2amine the following:
There is particular interest in the self insured, and the effect it has on “large group insured markets.” The following paragraphs are all keenly interested in the self insured.
3 (A) The types of employers by key charac
4teristics, including size, that purchase insured
5 products versus those that self-insure.
6 (B) The similarities and differences be
7tween typical insured and self-insured health
8 plans.
9 (C) The financial solvency and capital re
10serve levels of employers that self-insure by em
11ployer size.
12 (D) The risk of self-insured employers not
13 being able to pay obligations or otherwise be
14coming financially insolvent.
15 (E) The extent to which rating rules are
16 likely to cause adverse selection in the large
17 group market or to encourage small and mid
18 size employers to self-insure
19 (2) REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after
20 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commis
21sioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable
22 agencies a report on the study conducted under
23 paragraph
And finally, we see why:
(1). Such report shall include any rec
24ommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate
25 to ensure that the law does not provide incentives
1 for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or
2 create adverse selection in the risk pools of large
3 group insurersand self-insured employers. Not later
4 than 18 months after the first day of Y1, the Com
5missioner shall submit to Congress and the applica
6ble agencies an updated report on such study, in
7cluding updates on such recommendations.
If people have incentive to self insure, they will not be beholden either to the Insurance Exchange, or the “public option.” It is in the best interest of career politicians and the power hungry to eliminate or heavily curtail self insurance so that they are forced into the government controlled market created by Section 102 (The exchange and Public Option).
If the government really wanted to keep costs down, they would offer incentives to self-insure, not hinder it. They want people in the “risk pools of large group insurers” either because they are beholden to special interests, or they want to force people into the “public” government option, or perhaps some kind of combination that would both give the government more power and benefit the top people in the insurance company.
There has been much discussion abut HR 3200 forcing people into the “public option.” While it does not do this directly, Section 102 of “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” stacks the deck against the private options, sunsets the employer offered insurance currently enrolled members can keep, and could lead to a “single-payer” system with Government in control of all American’s healthcare. (all numbered lines are direct quotes from HR3200).
Here is the first part of Section 102:
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
Ok, there’s the claim that all the proponents are making “if you like your plan you can keep it, if you like your doctor…etc.” If it ended there, it would be true. However, this is the immediately following paragraph:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
This will drive the steak through the heart of the private plans. They cannot enroll anyone new in their plans, except dependents of those currently covered. This will ensure that the “80% who are happy with their plans” would eventually be unable to keep the plan, as the number of people in it decreases. This is bad enough, but it gets worse.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be26
fore the first day of Y1.
(3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
7 Commissioner.
The plans become frozen, the offerer is at the complete mercy of the government regarding every aspect of the plans they offer. This will prevent them from raising prices as the covered pool of employees decreases (due to the inability to seek any new customers and keep their enrollee pools at sufficient levels to cover costs). The above conditions would be enough in themselves to kill private options, but there is more.
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
9BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
(2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPT
19ABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified
20 in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health
21 plan that is described in such paragraph shall be
22 treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
Five years after the bill passes, all the grandfathered options you “are allowed to keep” will be required to change to match the options offered in the “health insurance exchange.” Thus, the original promise “if you like your plan, you can keep it” is a lie. You can only keep it up to 5 years from the signing of this bill.
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
24 COVERAGE.—
1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance
2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par
5ticipating health benefits plan.
What about Choice? What about all those plans “competing” with the “public option” in the exchange?
The only individual health insurance available will be those offered through the “exchange.” All of these plans will be completely regulated by the government (price, benefits offered, enrollment requirements), and will be available only in the 3 flavors defined by this bill (they have to offer plan 1 before they can offer the “enhanced” plan, and they must offer both of those before they can offer the “premium” plan. You can choose among identical plans, with the difference that all but one of them is subject to an extra tax, frequent audits, and denial of all reimbursements for unspecified lengths of time if something goes wrong on a person’s plan. The one that is exempt of course, is the public option.
Conclusion:
So you see, section 102 alone will ultimately kill off true choice for insurance, and will ultimately herd people onto the public option which until recently, Obama was not afraid to support without hesitation. Unprecedented American opposition to the idea has prompted him to change his words and phrases, calling for “health insurance” reform and a “public option.” Softer, less frightening words that still mask the same end goal: Government control of healthcare.
It is clear now the direction this administration is taking us: from debasing ourselves before the Islamic world to Secretary of State Hillary begging 3rd World dictators in China to continue buying our debt, bringing in the most corrupt tax-dodging career politicians to the highest positions of power, spending money we don’t have to bring the economy and nation out of debt, honing the politics of fear to a razors edge, paring hundreds of points from the stock market destroying more people’s retirements and wealth with every presentation of a socialist plan.
Which the stock market still reeling from the unprecedented trillion dollar spending plan, already a plan for the government to spend another quarter trillion plus on buying mortgages and forcing banks to write down other mortgages, already a plan to introduce a tyrannical cap-and-trade global warming con designed to leach about a third of a trillion dollars from the private market, not to mention the ensuing surge in fuel prices and the fact that Obama plans to spend that money buying the votes of the people who can’t (or no longer can thanks to cap-and-trade) afford their heating bills. This is not even factoring in the cost of nationalized health care!
He has lied in front of the entire nation, not, as Clinton did about some private and debasing sin, but about one trillion dollars of OUR money. There is no such thing as federal money, it is the money of the taxpayers! It is supposed to be spent to keep this country safe for prosperity, not on pork! Oh, he made a couple petty “concessions” like about the condoms, but I can’t help but think those were in there, specifically so they could be removed and touted as a “compromise” without endangering the porkish nature of the spending package.
At best, Obama is naive of the most basic of economics and is a terrible judge of character. At worst, he is out to undermine this country, to subvert and destroy her prosperity and strength by economic chaos and international weakness.
Wake up people and see this! Let the scales fall from your eyes, birds of a feather flock together, and you have seen Obama’s flock: Tax Cheats, Racist Preachers, Socialists, Marxists, Unrepentant Terrorists (jump starting your political career out of the home of one DOES count)!
This country needs a rapid change of direction! Keep pressure on your congressmen! on your local and state governments! Hold them accountable!
Our next real chance to turn America off this destructive path is in 2010. We MUST hold them accountable for following the pied piper off an economic and social cliff! We as Americans MUST repent, and turn our hearts to the God of our Founding Fathers! It was by HIS divine providence this country emerged and was able to throw off the chains of colonial oppression. We must, with clear hearts and clean consciences repent and turn back to Him! We must discern righteousness and reject evil! Hold our government accountable to a higher standard! In order for a revival to take hold of our government, it MUST start with you and me! Live within your means, trust in the Lord and don’t lean on your own understanding! Turn YOUR heart to God. That is how it starts! How can we cry out to God about our government’s debt, when we ourselves live beyond our means, max out credit cards, buy houses and cars we cannot afford? Our government has lost its economic and moral compass because WE THE PEOPLE, have lost ours. We are reaping what we’ve sown in abundance over the last 50 years! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do good? Who can pervert His judgment? If we but repent, He will stay His hand.
America has much work to do, but it can still be done! Start today! CHANGE your own life, get YOUR priorities right. As you do, SPREAD the word. Let us start a REAL grassroots revival. Time is short! Tired of Washington? Step up and GET involved! Run for office! KNOW the issues! PRAY! WORK! We can pray God will revive America, but are WE willing to STAND up and be USED of God to bring that revival? Faith without works is DEAD!
The Author of Liberty is ready and willing to refill the cup of a repentant people! Let us be humbled before HIM, put ourselves under HIS blessing! Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to us! Righteousness STILL exalts a nation! Let us be removed from the reproach of SIN!
We call Liberty a right. However, it has been a rare privilege throughout history. If we mean to pass the torch of liberty to a new generation, we must ACT NOW! To wait, to delay, to depend on government to save us from our own sins, is to deny the blessing of liberty! TAKE responsibility! Humble yourself before GOD, he promises to exalt! Be part of a new generation of leaders who will rise up and draw this country back to greatness!
Acknowledge the Author, and PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT THE LAND, and TO THE INHABITANTS THEREOF!
I decided to post and share my extra large high rez NoBama posters! Suitable for printing up to at least 11×17!
Get the message out, and let me know if you’ve posted these anywhere! (warning: will torture dial-up connections, middle class incomes, and bourgeois elements!
I have recently began to read Obama’s book Dreams from my father and, though I am only a few pages into it, I feel some interesting observations can be made.
He has melded different characters into one (p xvii), changed the names of most people he knew, and some events are taken “out of precise chronology.” Such things are perfectly fine for historical fiction, but for someone writing an autobiographical book, one has to wonder how much the truth has been compromised by such actions. Of perhaps greater importance, is that any changes he has made were his choice, and will show us how he views such people and groups and beliefs.
Another unusual feature has been that, only 13 pages in, he has twice made reference or comparison to Communists and socialists. Neither reference was necessary, and is perhaps awkward.
The first reference Obama compares his state of hopelessness to that of the Communists:
“…well, I suspect that I sound incurably naive, wedded to lost hopes, like those Communists who peddle their newspapers on the fringes of college towns(xv).”
The “lost hopes” Obama is referring to seems to be a personal and national racial identity crises, and he feels it is naive to hope that it will be solved. Racial equality is a good thing to strive for, and is indeed true from a scientific and spiritual (Biblical) standpoint.
However, his comparison indicates that Communists have the same sort of hopelessness over their (as of yet) failure to bring about a socialist society. Obama could have picked any other down and out group of people to compare himself to, and yet he chose Communists to sympathize with.
Again, on page 12, he interjects a favorable reference to socialists where it was unnecessary, and perhaps somewhat awkward to do so. It also shows a relatively concealed belief that whites are always racist(a central tenant to Dr. Cone’s Black Liberation Theology as taught at Trinity United Church of Christ), and his attempt to reconcile white grandparents from the age of racism admitting freely that their daughter married a black man.
Sure–but you let your daughter marry one? (Black man)
The fact that my grandparents had answered yes to this question, no matter how grudgingly, remains an enduring puzzle to me. There was nothing in their background to predict such a response, no New England transcendentalists or wild-eyed socialists in their family tree.
Again we have a good thing (interracial acceptance) married to socialism, the foundation of a system that takes away freedom and paycheck.
It is clear to me from this brief portion of Obama’s book that he considers socialism a good thing, and that he has sympathy for those Communists’ lost hopes, the hopes that generations of Americans have fought against for the preservation of the freedoms and values upon which this Union was founded.
In his continuing quest to “unite” America, Barack has indicated he would work to undermine on the federal level the Marriage protection amendments, laws and acts that have been passed by nearly every state.
From his website, you can get a sample of the “change” he would bring to America, and it certainly would not be limited to redefining marriage
Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise
on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to
the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward
together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
-Barack Obama
His mind is already made up, from this it is clear that he will not compromise on this stance, and his only reason for listening is to CHANGE the minds of “those who still need to be convinced.” The only way we will “move forward together” is on his terms.
You may have seen his obstinate unilateralism unintentionally revealed in one of his campaign ads where he said lobbyists would have no place “in MY whitehouse.” It may seem like a good concept, but just the way he said it. Just about every issue, whether gun rights, marriage, pro-life, free trade, abortion, gun-control, civil rights,(whether good or bad) these are all special interests.
It sounds like Barack would work unilaterally to change America.
