Politics And The Pulpit

Politics And The Pulpit
by Shane Idleman

Mass shootings, redefining marriage, killing innocent children, LGBT agendas infiltrating all aspects of life. What in the world is going on? I believe that the “pulpit” is partly to blame.

There is a very troubling trend in the evangelical church as a whole. We are in desperate need of “genuine” leadership, broken, humble people who are not “afraid” to admit that they need God; men who are more “worried” about prayer than about status and recognition; men who “petition” God rather than position themselves.

Today, the truth is often neglected, watered-down, or avoided altogether in the hope of not offending members and building a large audience. “Judgment” is never mentioned; “repentance” is never sought; and “sin” is often excused. We want to “build” a church rather than “break” a heart; be “politically” correct rather than “biblically” correct; “coddle and comfort” rather than “stir and convict.”

It says in I Timothy 1:15 “Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the worst,” yet, many avoid words such as “sin and repentance.” The good news about Christ can only be appreciated with the bad news as the backdrop.

“There are times when the saints must be fed, and there are times when the sinners must be warned” says C.H. Spurgeon. Preaching must be done with God-given authority to truly be effective. When we fail to proclaim God’s Word faithfully, we run the risk of “encouraging sin” and “perverting the words of the living God” (Jeremiah 23).

Pastors are to be pillars who support “truth” not champions of “silence.” God has given us a wonderful gift known as America. The government isn’t bad or good; her people “determine” success or failure. Why would God ordain our government and then not want us to steward His gift? Many have been guilty of not getting involved by saying, “We shouldn’t say or do anything political. All we need to do is preach the gospel.” Be careful . . . although the gospel is our primary focus, this shouldn’t be an excuse against action.

James A. Garfield, an ordained minister and twentieth President of the United States, said, “Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.” We are actually voting for principles, not people—all candidates are sinners.

“In what direction will they lead our country?” is the question we should be asking. Even more importantly, what country will we leave for our children?

We don’t have to “abandon” our ethics or compromise our “principles” to be involved in politics—what good is “salt” left in the shaker, or a “light” that is hidden? Contextually, when Jesus referred to being the “salt and light,” He was referring to holy living at the “individual” level, but the overlapping “principle” applies to all areas of life.

“Politics” is not a bad word. In simple terms, politics refers to “governing or leading” a group of people. Politics won’t save America, but in order to implement “change” and help others, we must take “action;” hence the political process. Would you have remained “silent” in the 1800s over slavery? Of course not.

Politics that once “focused” largely on the economy, national security, and the deficit, now tackles important “moral” issues. These major issues have “enormous” implications; to remain silent actually makes a “statement” that we are not concerned enough. This is not just about the loss of jobs; it’s about the loss of morality.

We’re not just talking about “adding” millions of dollars to the national deficit; we’re talking about “aborting” millions of babies. We’re not only talking about “fluctuations” in the housing market; we’re talking about creating life simply to “destroy” it. This shift requires us to stay closely “involved.” Topics that are “too controversial” are often critically important; we can no longer “ignore” them.

Interestingly enough, the “stability” of America is one of the top concerns on the minds of many today. There was a time in recent history when America felt “secure” knowing that the most formidable enemies were abroad. Not so today. While we are concerned with “terrorist” attacks, and rightly so, there is a greater threat from “corruption” within. We, like the mighty Roman Empire that “collapsed” centuries ago, are “crumbling” from within.

There are people and groups who are strongly committed to the “destruction” of anything rooted in our nation’s Christian heritage. They attempt to be “one nation above God,” rather than “one nation under God.” Scripture identifies this as foolishness, self-exaltation, and arrogance—“the downfall of nations.”

There is a saying that one generation plants “trees” for the next generation. I’m concerned that instead of “planting”, we are removing and “destroying” the very covering that protects us. As a result, our “legacy” as a great and noble nation has all but been “forgotten.” For instance, most schools no longer teach students about the “spiritual” foundation that has guided America throughout her history.

Consequently, America’s “moral and religious” heritage is often deleted, grossly distorted, or revised altogether. Students often miss the critical connection between “America’s unparalleled greatness, her rise to world leadership, and the spiritual foundation that made it possible.” This should concern us. The ideas of the classroom in one generation will “create” the ideas of government within the next.

Today, our culture promotes “relativism”, and man does what is right in his “own” eyes. Again, according to Scripture, to his own “destruction.” God’s Word says to “confront, confess, and turn from our sins; relativism encourages us to ignore, overlook, and continue in them.” Although this position may seem radical or extreme, we are living in extremely critical times.

Make no mistake about it. We are witnessing the rapid “deterioration” of a nation right before our eyes. But there is hope: 2 Chronicles 7:14 calls out from the past with resounding clarity to America today: “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

There are times to “encourage, motivate, and uplift,” but there are also times to “confront, challenge, and contend” for what is right—that time is now.

Let it not be said of us today: “After that whole generation had been gathered to their ancestors, another generation grew up who knew neither the Lord nor what he had done for Israel.” (Judges 2:10). The day of the “silent” pastor who is more concerned about “nickels and noses” must end.

Are we pleasing God or men… are we cowards or watchmen?

Common Sense/Senseless World

Thomas Sowell is often called “the smartest person in the room” by those who know him. A newly released documentary explores how he earned that honor, and why he is considered by many as one of the greatest intellectuals of modern American conservatism.

“Thomas Sowell: Common Sense in a Senseless World” debuted recently. The one-hour film by Free to Choose Media is available to view for free on YouTube and Vimeo, as well as on Amazon Prime.

It traces Sowell’s life, starting from his humble beginnings in North Carolina and his coming of age in Harlem. It then follows his footsteps as he made his way as a student and then educator at such campuses as the University of Chicago, Harvard, Columbia, Cornell and UCLA.

The film tackles his evolution as a Marxist to a limited-government and free market economist.

It also delves into his passion for school choice, his talents as an amateur photographer, his interest in late-talking children, and how his world travels shaped his scholarly work.

It’s narrated by The Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley, who described Sowell as an honest intellectual who spent his career “putting truth above popularity” and following “facts where they lead.”

Sowell, when asked why he “abandoned” Marxism, was able to answer that question in a word: “facts.” But he also mentioned a brief stint working inside the federal government made him realize it holds no true solutions.

The documentary peppers in interviews by some of Sowell’s intellectual peers, such as Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Steven Pinker and Victor Davis Hanson, who described their friend as someone who fearlessly and relentlessly sought the truth through intellectual honesty, asking the right questions, and following facts to their logical conclusion.

The film notes, for example, that it was his time teaching at Cornell in the 1960s that led him to witness and learn firsthand about the mismatch concept, in which black students who do very well at other schools are recruited in name of affirmative action to schools where they are in over their heads, creating “animosity, angst, division, and academic failure.”

The documentary also tackled Sowell’s take on the “welfare state”, which he sees as something that disincentivizes success, especially for and within the black community.

As the film tracks Sowell’s life, his prolific writing career and his published works as a scholar at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, it drops in some of his poignant quotes, such as: “If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago and a racist today.”

Today, at age 90, Sowell’s thoughts on “economics, history, race and politics” have not only already influenced countless Americans throughout the decades, but are sure to stand the “test of time” and serve as a lasting conservative legacy in the generations to come.

Marxist-turned-free-market economist Thomas Sowell writes his final syndicated column
The man who should have been our first Black president

Judicial Philosophy vs. Politics

Even though the President of the United States is supposed to “appoint” Supreme Court Justices based on their “judicial philosophy and not their politics”, President Bill Clinton “admitted” that he chose Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her “steadfast” commitment to upholding “abortion.”

Speaking at Georgetown University Law School, the former president said that protecting “Roe v. Wade” played a significant role in his selection of “Ginsburg” to the Supreme Court.

https://abcn.ws/2PtGHRb

“There is one thing that we did discuss, and I feel I should tell you, because it will illustrate why I thought I should appoint her. Abortion was a big issue in 1992 — the right to choose, I was one of the first pro-choice Democrats to run since Roe v. Wade, who actually benefited from Roe v. Wade. Now, she didn’t have to say anything about this. She knew this perfectly well that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who is Simon-pure, which I had said was important,” Clinton said, as reported by ABC News.

No president has ever “admitted” to asking a potential Supreme Court nominee on how they would “rule on an issue” like abortion. In fact, when Justice Gorsuch was asked about such a meeting during his confirmation process, he said that would have “walked out the door” if President Trump pressed him to “overturn” Roe v. Wade.

Former President Clinton said he “inquired” with Ginsburg about the issue of “abortion” and admitted that his pick was “clearly pro-choice” after nominating her.

“I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no effect, this is what I think, this is why I think it. And she made a heck of a case,” Clinton said.

Bill Clinton’s frank admission about how he “selected” Ginsburg suggests she may have “lied” during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing when she said it was “inappropriate for anyone to ask how a judicial nominee would rule on a specific case.”

“It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question,” Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg’s “pro-abortion” record on the Supreme Court is well-documented and often goes beyond “legal” jurisprudence and into “ideological” statements about “sexism and gender politics,” such as when she accused her male peers of “sexism” in the Hobby Lobby ruling.

“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Katie Couric asked Ginsburg in light of the ruling.

“I would have to say no,” she replied. “But justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow.”

 More proof that “judicial philosophy and politics” go hand in hand despite what they “preach and want you to believe.”

If you wait long enough the “truth” eventually will set you free.

Money and Politics

America’s 2018 midterm elections are in our rear-view mirror. But let’s take a moment to reflect on one aspect that got little press. It reveals something fundamental about our system of government worth thinking about:

What are we “buying” with our Money?

As in so many other aspects of life, you learn a lot when you follow the money. And in these midterms, there was an enormous amount of money to follow: enough dollar bills to fill 5,000 forklift pallets—enough pallets to fill a container ship.

The midterm elections are called “midterm” because they occur halfway through the four-year presidential term. Presidents have four-year terms, senators have six-year terms, and representatives have two-year terms. Every two years, all the representatives’ seats are up for election, as are one third of the senators’ seats. In addition to 470 national offices, there are thousands of others up for election: governors, state representatives and officers, and local representatives and officers. One source counted more than 3,000 candidates for legislatures.

And all of them were spending lots and lots of money.

Every serious candidate had to rent offices, hold rallies, print signs, produce advertisements, purchase television time, buy online ads, and pay advisers, researchers and other campaign workers. All this money is spent whether they get elected or not. Even running a losing campaign is enormously expensive.

How much money are we talking about?

The 2018 midterm elections were the costliest congressional elections in United States history by far. When you add the mountain of money spent by candidates, party committees and the more than 3,200 outside groups, the cost of the 2018 midterm elections smashed the 2014 midterms by about 35 percent. All those “I approve this message” ads add up!

The total estimated cost? Five billion dollars.

With $5 billion, you could build a $100 million school in all 50 states. Or you could build about 50 new F-35 fighter jets. Or you could construct a fleet of about 50 container ships. Or you could launch 10 space shuttle missions.

And you could do it every two years.

What is this money being spent on instead? These trainloads of money are being spent on trying to influence voters. They’re being spent on signs and rallies and voter research and so forth. They’re being spent on “opposition research.” They’re being spent on vapid television ads that have nothing to do with issues or policies.

They’re being spent not necessarily to inform voters, not necessarily to get the truth out, but just to convince more people to vote for one candidate than for his or her opponent.

It’s actually quite stunning to think of how all this money in politics is used to sway voters, who decide who will rule—when you look at the declining wisdom and judgment within the voting public. As Winston Churchill said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” 

Now, this money doesn’t come from the candidates’ personal bank accounts, except in fairly rare cases. This money comes from donors. And most of it comes from big donors. As much as politicians like to talk about all the small donations they receive, less than 10 percent of Americans have contributed to a political campaign, ever. And very few Americans give more than $200, which is the amount that has to be reported to the Federal Election Commission: That number has never exceeded more than 0.5 percent of Americans.

Most of the money comes from large individual donors, and from political action committees (PAC’s). And most of these committees are sponsored by corporations, trade associations and other business and professional groups.

Some individuals spend tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars supporting their chosen political candidate or party.

Why? Some think the issues are so important (abortion, for example), that it is worth giving away serious money to help the candidate who shares their viewpoint. But many have a narrower, more selfish motive. They want to help the candidate who will benefit them personally. They want to support a candidate who will pass tax laws or regulations that will benefit their businesses and bank accounts, that will make them more powerful. In some cases, they want the candidate to “pay them back” through other means, perhaps even appointment to office.

And money is a primary determinant of whether a candidate will win.

A 2017 study found that early fundraising strongly predicted which candidates won their primary races. Most candidates who out-fund raise and out-spend their opponents also out-perform them on election day. There are exceptions to the rule: Some big spenders actually lose. It’s also true that incumbents usually win, 9 to 1. So money isn’t all-important, but it is extremely important. When you think about it, it is too important.

“There are literally hundreds of different special interest groups seeking to promote their agendas by way of the wallet—from Big Oil to Big Labor, pharmaceutical companies to cable TV operators, and a full spectrum of ideological groups from the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association,” writes OpenSecrets.org. “The money they deliver to politicians, year after year, is what pays the biggest part of the bill for American elections.”

These spenders consider it a financial investment: If the candidates they donated to win, they expect, in some way or another, to receive benefits. These donors, to some degree, influence policy. And there are certainly cases where the amount of influence corresponds not to the merits of their policy preferences but to the amount of cash they hand over. 

Money has a perverse effect on government. All that money in American politics influences and perverts our politics in countless ways—from who wins elections to what they do once they are in office.

Did you know that the four richest counties in the United States are suburbs of Washington, D.C.? Think about that: Government and money are supposed to be two different things. But in America today, they have become absolutely inseparable.

And this effect is only getting worse. Since 1998, the cost of midterm elections has more than doubled. In just 20 years, we have gone from spending just under $2.5 billion to spending more than $5 billion! Without inflation, this number is even higher: $1.6 billion to $5.1 billion. And in those 20 years, America has spent a grand total of more than $38 billion on midterm elections. This does not include presidential elections!

Was that $38 billion well spent? Has it bought us senators and representatives with policies and character that have benefited this nation?

These are worthwhile questions to ask. But few really ask them honestly.

Yes, there is a growing general dissatisfaction with our political system, if we are to judge by Congress’s basement-level public approval ratings. And there are louder and louder calls for revising or doing away with various aspects of our system. People seem to want to move more toward direct democracy—getting rid of the electoral college, for example, or allowing everyone voting rights, including prisoners and illegal aliens—as if the wisdom of the multitude will increase by adding in such voices. There are revolutionary forces at work in America.

But one tangible outcome of our dissatisfaction is that we are pouring even more money into the political system we have. Even if it means to elect people who are fighting against that system.

It is worth thinking about what lessons we can take from the direction America’s politics have taken. It’s good to step back and evaluate the big picture.

After all, right now there is a strong trend among many nations to move away from American-style democratic representation. More and more countries are moving away from this type of electioneering. Many are virtually dispensing with the trappings of democracy altogether.

Are there any nations that look at America and see a government model worth following? America has become a model of terrible division—of infighting and bickering—of one political party checking the other—of inertia and gridlock.

Whether or not we realize it, this system is not the way of the future. It is about to become a relic of the past. The world is rapidly moving in a different direction.

Looked at from an even wider view, all human history teaches lessons about different types of government—their pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses.

America’s founders looked at all that history—and they created a system that tried to carefully balance elements of democratic representation with elements of aristocracy and with one-man rule. They were very aware that democracy had the tendency to become the tyranny of the majority. Founder John Adams said, “Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” 

Few people step back and consider these truths.

Money in Politics
Money And Politics
Money & Politics
How Money Corrupts American Politics
How Can the U.S. Shrink the Influence of Money in Politics?

Presidential Debates

I could not decide if I wanted to watch “The Debates” or “The American Gladiator.”

I settled on “The American Gladiator” as it more closely reflected “reality.”

Trump “serenading” Hillary Clinton at the Debate is the reason Al Gore “invented” the Internet…

Only in America can you take a debate about “politics, pussies, emails and ISIS” and turn it into a “sultry sweet romantic ballad.”

Vice Presidential Debate Fact-Check Livewire
Second Presidential Debate Fact-Check Livewire
Third Presidential Debate Fact-Check Livewire

Liberal or Conservative

John Hibbing and his colleagues are “pioneering” research on the physiological underpinnings of political ideology through scientific machinery like eye tracker devices and skin conductance sensors.

At the center of the research are scholars working at the intersection of “psychology, biology, and politics.”

The leader in the field is John Hibbing, a political scientist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln whose “Political Physiology Laboratory” has been producing some pretty stunning results.

“We know that liberals and conservatives are really deeply different on a variety of things,” Hibbing explains on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast.

“It runs from their tastes, to their cognitive patterns—‘how they think about things, what they pay attention to’—to their physical reactions. We can measure their sympathetic nervous systems, which is the “fight-or-flight” system. And liberals and conservatives tend to respond very differently.”

This is not fringe science.

One of  Hibbing’s pioneering papers on the “physiology of ideology” was published in none other than the top-tier journal “Science” in 2008. It found that “political” partisans on the left and the right differ significantly in their “bodily” responses to threatening stimuli.

For example, startle reflexes after hearing a loud noise were stronger in conservatives. And after being shown a variety of threatening images (“a very large spider on the face of a frightened person, a dazed individual with a bloody face, and an open wound with maggots in it,” according to the study), conservatives also exhibited greater skin conductance—a moistening of the sweat glands that indicates arousal of the sympathetic nervous system, which manages the body’s “fight-or-flight” response.

It all adds up, according to Hibbing, to what he calls a “negativity bias” on the right. Conservatives, Hibbing’s research suggests, go through the world more attentive to negative, threatening, and disgusting stimuli—“and then they adopt tough, defensive, and aversive ideologies to match that perceived reality.”

In a 2012 study, Hibbing and his colleagues showed as much through the use of “eye-tracking devices” like the one shown above. Liberals and conservatives were fitted with devices that tracked their gaze, and were shown a series of four-image collages containing pictures that were either “appetitive” (e.g., something happy or positive) or “aversive” (showing something threatening, scary, or disgusting).

The eye-tracking device allowed the researchers to “measure” where the research subjects first “fixed their gaze, how long it took them to do so, and then how long they tended to dwell on different images.”

The results of Hibbing’s study were clear. The conservatives tended to focus their eyes much more rapidly on the negative or aversive images, and also to dwell on them for a lot longer.

The authors therefore concluded that based on results like these, “those on the political right and those on the political left may simply experience the world differently.”

“Maybe you’ve had this experience, watching a political debate with somebody who disagrees with you,” says Hibbing. “And you discuss it afterwards. And it’s like, ‘Did we watch the same debate?’ And in some respects, you didn’t. And I think that’s what this research indicates.”

You might also enjoy these brief “excerpts” from Prof. Ryan’s paper “Are Conservatives Human?” on your way to “Next Tuesday.”

“Principles such as fairness enjoin torture and diminish prejudice. Liberals are able to support a national health care system… abstract cognition allows liberals to tolerate a threat to individual survival such as taxation because they can picture in their minds the way taxation indirectly helps them and us all” and again later in this masterwork this… “It is difficult to imagine how two such profoundly different Human forms could cooperate especially since only one of the parties sees selective advantage in such cooperation”.

I recall having seen a similar “research” on the Internet where they came up with more “pictorial” scientific brain maps.

The Brain Disorder of Conservatives

The Brain Disorder of Liberals

Thankfully, this “profound” science is much closer to “answering” our most compelling question.

“Can the conservative brain be fixed by progressive liberal psychology?”

Stay tuned until “Next Tuesday.”

If you look too long into the Obama symbols you could damage your retina.

Politics Is Not Theology

Bill Clinton “weighed” in on the legislative impasse at the heart of the “government” shutdown, admonishing the “constant conflict” that has come to define American politics.

Speaking at a convention of the National Community Pharmacists Association in Orlando, Clinton said he “liked” the crowd because of the “practicality” of their profession.

“I worry that our politics has gotten impractical. That’s about the nicest word I can think of,” Clinton said.

Convictions are a good thing, Clinton said, as are political “beliefs and support” of one policy over the other.

But “politics is not theology.”

The comments are some of the first Clinton has made on the spat over “government funding, debt and ObamaCare” since before the partial shutdown took effect.

In an interview with ABC at the end of September, Clinton took a “hard-line” approach to the looming shutdown, calling on Obama to call a congressional Republican “bluff” on defunding the Affordable Health Care Act.

Obama could have “stopped” the shutdown, Clinton said at the time.

“But the current price of stopping it is higher than the price of letting the Republicans do it and taking their medicine,” he said.

Clinton was far less “confrontational” and far more the “elder statesmen” who has seen and done it before, having been President during the last federal government “shut downs” in 1995 and 1996.

Instead of “conflict”, Clinton urged “cooperation.”

“Nobody’s right all the time. And the more complex problems are the more you need people to work together,” he said.

But politics is often a “zero-sum” game where there are winners and losers and especially in Washington, working together is often far less “attractive” than some notion of winning.

“Constant conflict is actually often good politics. Because the more you can inflame your supporters the more likely they are to show up at election day,” Clinton said.

“And if they’re more inflamed than the other side, even if the other side has more people agreeing with it, you’ll win because your crowd will show up.”

USA R.I.P.

USA R.I.P.
By Doug Gamble

Well, it was great while it lasted.  But with the reelection of Barack Obama as president, the America we have known all our lives is gone.

Those of us who believe in the virtues that made this country great, self-reliance, hard work, entrepreneurship, individual liberty, responsibility, etc., are now strangers in our own country.

We will now live each day knowing that a majority of our fellow Americans have rejected these long-held beliefs in favor of massive government control over our lives.

Given four more years, the Entitlement Society Obama is building will be complete.  Robbed of the incentive to achieve or even work, increasing numbers of Americans will turn to the government teat.

And it’s possible that we may never again see a Republican president.  Almost half of all Americans now rely on the federal government for support of one kind or another, and there will be so many in this category by 2016 and beyond, election campaigns will be dominated by warnings that to vote against the Democrats is to risk losing benefits.  Most Americans, dependent on the government for survival in the wake of the economic collapse Obama’s policies will cause, won’t dare take the chance of voting Republican.

Obama’s victory also means the MSNBC-ization of the entire mainstream media. Liberal advocacy journalism is now all-powerful in its ability to help defeat Republicans, and will become even more an arm of the Obama White House.  And,by the way, watch for a government crackdown on the Fox News Channel and conservative talk radio.  How?  They’ll find a way.  When Obama talked of “revenge,” he didn’t just mean revenge against Mitt Romney for daring to challenge him and revenge against America for the crime of becoming the most successful country on earth.

Also, with the media cover-up of Benghazi as a successful model, any and all negative developments that would affect Obama will go unreported.  This White House, this administration, will do whatever they want without fear of exposure in any meaningful way.  The New York Times’ motto should be, “All the news that’s fit to omit,” a credo adopted by all mainstream media in this presidential campaign.

Watch for the war against achievers to escalate, to the point where it will be more comfortable in a social gathering to lie and say that one is on welfare rather than admit to owning or being part of a business.  Just as people who smoke have become social outcasts, so eventually will people who earn a living in what remains of the private sector.

As for Congress, not only is it irrelevant that the Republicans still control the House, it would have been just as irrelevant if they controlled the Senate as well.  With executive orders, government department regulations and simply mandating that something is so, Obama has effectively ended our long-held system of checks and balances.  He demonstrated in his first term that he can do whatever he wants, and this circumventing of Congress will be rampant in his second term.

This election was a clear choice for America between capitalism and socialism. Socialism won.  We will now become what Obama has wanted all along, a country brought to its knees as payback for the virtues he sees as vice . Over the next four years, everything we have held dear about America will fade away and Barack Obama will become the most consequential president in our history. Ronald Reagan may be remembered for his contribution to ending Soviet communism, but Obama can top that.  He will go down in history has having ended the United States of America as we’ve known it.

America has passed away.  The funeral service is scheduled for January 20, 2013. I won’t be watching.

This is truly scary! We are not a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Someone should point this out to Obama. Of course, we know he and too many others pay little attention to The Constitution.

Apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

In 1887, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say about Democracy:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship.”

The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: 

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

Overheard on the street…

“You can’t be a Democrat and go to Heaven.”

“The road to hell is paved with Democrats.”

The “47” Percenters

In support of and to commemorate Obama’s “past presidency” here is a fine selection of “47%-ers” T-shirts.

PICK one and OCCUPY it!

Catholics against Obama

Penned by Joe Doakes…

Dear President Obama,

I read that you went to church, on Sunday no less, without Reverend Wright. If you are trying to find religion things must be worse than even I think they are. Well, I’ve always said a little religion is a good thing, but in your case it just looks fake, kind of like when you play golf. You don’t believe in God. You believe in the god of Government. With the first commandment being “Thou shalt pay confiscatory taxes such that resting on the Sabbath is not even an option.” Now that the riff raff have been kicked out of the private school, I guess that whole charity thing is shot too. Maybe, if you say “Hope and Change” a few times you might convince those kids that they are suffering for you, and their sacrifice to the god of Government will not be in vein.

Let’s get back to the Government god, the protector and defender of all that is graft and collusion.  I’ve got to hand it to all of you and especially Blagojevich, I am impressed, not only have you committed rape, and pillage upon “We The People,” but some of them thank you for it, they even get on a bus, and spit on people I really respect for you as you put in place the very plans that will destroy them. That’s really impressive, Bernie Madoff, has nothing on all of you. The lot of you could screw a hooker and convince her to pay for it!  Now, your god of Government is upset with you Mr. Obama, and frankly, while I may be impressed, he is not.

Why is this so?  For one thing the United States of America is still here, chugging along with all the accumulated dead weight that liberal democrats have heaved upon her. Government god is also upset that the people still have a voice, he doesn’t like that. You, as his surrogate, should stop all free speech immediately; tell Kathleen Sebelius to issue another communique threatening the CEO’s of insurance companies with summary execution unless they place the blame for higher premiums on those that truly deserve it; breast cancer patients, and further, that it is wholly unsatisfactory that they should live another day – The god of Government commands it to you Mr. Obama, you will obey.

The bigger cheese is likely also upset at the godless turn of events in God’s country. “I am the Lord your God . . . You shall have no other God’s before me.” Boy, have you screwed that one up. I imagine that is a big one with the man upstairs. You see, God works his will through the faithful, and not those like yourself who pray to false gods and bear false witness on a daily basis – you don’t even know what the truth is anymore. Hell, they even got you thinking you fight “terrorists” by killing one side of the same Arab coin. Who’s the fool Barrack, you, or me? Don’t answer that, we know the answer.

Well in 44 days the god of Government is going to have another problem. “We The People” are going into those polls, and we are going to fire the first shots in the shape of ballots at your Government god, and we are going to put God back where He belongs. If this crop of politicians falls for the god of Government, we will just do it all again, we will be relentless, “we will not weaken or tire,” we were given the tools by our founding fathers and we have deployed them against you to good effect. Remember, it only takes one person to shut the whole freak show down. I cannot wait to see the curtain come down on the latest installment of liberalism run amok, I have to say, the sequel was worse than the original. Roll credits . . .

Respectfully,

Joe Doakes

Now, here’s a man of morals! Straddling himself between the Bible and the Koran. Obama has no shame. Stop quoting the Bible, Obama. You go against God, and only bring Him up when you need to win an election. Then you go against everything the Bible teaches. You are for murdering babies and for the sin of homosexuality and same sex marriages. Stop lying about your faith. Do you really believe you are fooling anyone with this “bullshit?”

I would think that a pro-abortion Catholic would by definition not be a Catholic. Since I’m new to this, perhaps somebody could tell me if there are any atheistic Catholics as well?

I don’t think Obama is talking about spreading around the same “bread” Jesus shared. May God Almighty have mercy on his wicked soul. On second thoughts he doesn’t deserve His grace.

Catholic in Brooklyn