Now our President is warning the Supreme Court justices that they should not become "activists". Is this the same President whose Department of Justice has stopped several states from implementing laws which they passed? Does this mean that this President is also upset with the 9th Circuit Court for overturning California's Proposition 8?
What the President is really saying is that he is not a big fan of our Constitution. What he's saying is that the Constitution puts limitations on his plans for our country that he does not like.
One thing that should result from the Obamacare discussion is that Americans should become more aware of the importance of having a President that is going to choose justices that will be true to the Constitution. This President is the one who will REALLY choose "activist" judges, ones who ignore the Constitution in order to further a political agenda. America should not allow this. We need a new President.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Monday, April 2, 2012
Unpresidential
Once again, In my opinion, President Obama has been very unpresidential. I think his comments today about the Supreme Court were intended to send a message to those Justices that they had better make the right decision...the one he thinks is right. I thought it was arrogant. I think he is trying to influence their decision....the Chicago way. I do not think America has ever had a President who has acted in this way. I think it is appalling.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Presidential Impropriety
The President gave a speech today at a junior college on the topic of energy. I considered it a pretty lousy speech from an energy policy standpoint, but I just want to focus on the tone of the speech. The President was simply not Presidential. Several of his comments were downright insulting of his political opponents. I feel the office of the President should be handled with dignity and class, and for the most part, this has been true of Presidents in our nation's past. This President seems to think that getting laughs at the expense of Republicans is in his best interest.
Just remember that this is the same President that gave a famous speech on the topic of keeping civility in political discourse. This is just one of many examples of how this man does not practice what he preaches. Our nation deserves better, and I certainly hope we get a better President in November.
Just remember that this is the same President that gave a famous speech on the topic of keeping civility in political discourse. This is just one of many examples of how this man does not practice what he preaches. Our nation deserves better, and I certainly hope we get a better President in November.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Mandater-in-Chief
I really do not think we have ever had a President who has been involved in MANDATING so many things. Just remember...the more the mandates, the fewer the freedoms.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Military Madness
This one really has me steamed. If there is one thing that our Constitution specifically mentions as one of its limited tasks, it is the operation of a military to defend our country. The current administration has been pushing numerous cuts to the Defense Department.
Now we find out that those in the active military are going to be expected to contribute quite a bit more to their healthcare plan. At the same time, civilians working in the Defense Department are not expected to make the same sacrifices. This is because the civilians are unionized. Need I say more.
I consider this a slap in the face to those who put their lives on the line to serve our country. Our President just gives the military lip-service. I personally think he has very little respect for the military. I think he has more respect for the Occupy Wall Street protesters. The policies of the Obama administration have caused our nation's financial woes. He certainly should not try to solve the problems he caused by punishing the military.
Military personnel are not permitted to speak unkindly about their Commander-in-Chief. So I guess people like me have to do it for them. We simply cannot tolerate another term for Barack Obama.
By the way, I wonder what our servicemen/women think about our country spending $750,000 to provide detainees a new soccer field at Gitmo.
President Obama is bound and determined to make this country weaker.
Now we find out that those in the active military are going to be expected to contribute quite a bit more to their healthcare plan. At the same time, civilians working in the Defense Department are not expected to make the same sacrifices. This is because the civilians are unionized. Need I say more.
I consider this a slap in the face to those who put their lives on the line to serve our country. Our President just gives the military lip-service. I personally think he has very little respect for the military. I think he has more respect for the Occupy Wall Street protesters. The policies of the Obama administration have caused our nation's financial woes. He certainly should not try to solve the problems he caused by punishing the military.
Military personnel are not permitted to speak unkindly about their Commander-in-Chief. So I guess people like me have to do it for them. We simply cannot tolerate another term for Barack Obama.
By the way, I wonder what our servicemen/women think about our country spending $750,000 to provide detainees a new soccer field at Gitmo.
President Obama is bound and determined to make this country weaker.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Voter Candy
Over the years, I have observed many varieties of the basic technique of getting a child to go where you want them to go or do what you want them to do by offering them candy. The children don't really desire to do what a person wants, but they will in order to get the candy. I cannot say that I am a big fan of these techniques, but I admit that I have used them under desperate situations.
Right now, I would describe what President Obama and his campaign are doing as resembling this technique. Let's call it VOTER CANDY. Here are some of the examples of what I call voter candy:
1. Gov't help with foreclosure Target: Homeowner who should not have bought that home
2. Payroll Tax Holiday extension Target: Wage-earners
3. Unemployment Benefits extension Target: The unemployed
4. More stimulus proposed Target: Union workers (teachers, police, etc.)
5. Budget with no entitlement reform Target: Seniors, food stamp recipients, etc.
6. Telling colleges to reduce tuition Target: college students, parents of college students
**The above items all involve spending government money or the promise to spend government money.
Then there is what I consider the most devious of them all, because it is an example of Pres. Obama telling a business that THEY must provide the candy.
7. Free contraceptives Target: Women, anyone wanting to practice safe sex
It needs to be noted that whenever there is a target audience for this vote candy, there is also another group that suffers as a result. Government money doesn't grow on trees (although they sometimes just print it and make the debt bigger); it comes from taxpayers. Usually it comes from income taxes, and in this case, that means the ones suffering are the more successful, hard-working ones, and half of America does not suffer at all.
As you can see, Pres. Obama's tax candy goes to a very large group of Americans. The Obama Campaign is counting on Americans to accept the candy and cast their vote to re-elect the President. I don't think most Americans are happy with his job performance, but they may just fall for the candy.
Allow me to give you another aspect of VOTER CANDY. Let us suppose that a teacher promises candy, and then the principal puts his/her foot down and says no candy is to be given out. In this scenario, even though the teacher gives out no candy, the children still see that teacher as being the hero for the effort to give the candy, while the principal ends up being the mean villain. The principal may have very good rationale for not allowing the candy, including the possibility that the school could not afford the candy. In other words, the teacher just needs to make the promise, not deliver on it, in order to maintain her favor in the eyes of the students. The same thing could be said for President Obama. In some cases, he knows the GOP will step in and say NO to his proposals, but because he at least tried, he may still be in good favor with some voters.
I hope you realize that such techniques generally only work on children, not adults. As for me, I would rather go out and get my own candy. And I have always had more respect for folks that do not have to use a gift to get them to be liked by others.
I would love to hear from you if you know of other examples of voter candy. I have the feeling that my list is not complete.
Right now, I would describe what President Obama and his campaign are doing as resembling this technique. Let's call it VOTER CANDY. Here are some of the examples of what I call voter candy:
1. Gov't help with foreclosure Target: Homeowner who should not have bought that home
2. Payroll Tax Holiday extension Target: Wage-earners
3. Unemployment Benefits extension Target: The unemployed
4. More stimulus proposed Target: Union workers (teachers, police, etc.)
5. Budget with no entitlement reform Target: Seniors, food stamp recipients, etc.
6. Telling colleges to reduce tuition Target: college students, parents of college students
**The above items all involve spending government money or the promise to spend government money.
Then there is what I consider the most devious of them all, because it is an example of Pres. Obama telling a business that THEY must provide the candy.
7. Free contraceptives Target: Women, anyone wanting to practice safe sex
It needs to be noted that whenever there is a target audience for this vote candy, there is also another group that suffers as a result. Government money doesn't grow on trees (although they sometimes just print it and make the debt bigger); it comes from taxpayers. Usually it comes from income taxes, and in this case, that means the ones suffering are the more successful, hard-working ones, and half of America does not suffer at all.
As you can see, Pres. Obama's tax candy goes to a very large group of Americans. The Obama Campaign is counting on Americans to accept the candy and cast their vote to re-elect the President. I don't think most Americans are happy with his job performance, but they may just fall for the candy.
Allow me to give you another aspect of VOTER CANDY. Let us suppose that a teacher promises candy, and then the principal puts his/her foot down and says no candy is to be given out. In this scenario, even though the teacher gives out no candy, the children still see that teacher as being the hero for the effort to give the candy, while the principal ends up being the mean villain. The principal may have very good rationale for not allowing the candy, including the possibility that the school could not afford the candy. In other words, the teacher just needs to make the promise, not deliver on it, in order to maintain her favor in the eyes of the students. The same thing could be said for President Obama. In some cases, he knows the GOP will step in and say NO to his proposals, but because he at least tried, he may still be in good favor with some voters.
I hope you realize that such techniques generally only work on children, not adults. As for me, I would rather go out and get my own candy. And I have always had more respect for folks that do not have to use a gift to get them to be liked by others.
I would love to hear from you if you know of other examples of voter candy. I have the feeling that my list is not complete.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
The Family Loses Again.
Yesterday, there was a story about a child in a government school who brought a lunch made by the mother, only to have it deemed unacceptable. Then the child was required to be given the lunch provided by the school lunch program. It is my understanding that the lunch the mother made consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, potato chips, a banana, and apple juice. I don't know about you, but if I, as a teacher, saw a child eating such a lunch, I would be very satisfied. In this case, the school lunch consisted of the required types of foods, and the result was that the child ended up eating three chicken nuggets. The story I read made it appear that the child chose not to eat anything else on the tray. One other side comment:. I have eaten chicken nuggets that are available through the government food programs. They are not that tasty, and they are not that good for you. Here are several questions that I would pose:
1. Why does our government have someone looking through children's lunches brought from home to see if the are "acceptable"?
2. Is there really someone getting paid to be a lunch inspector by our government schools?
3. Is it the school or the parent that knows what a child will eat?
4. Is it the school or the parent that knows what is good for the child to eat?
5. How much food was wasted in this scenario?
6. How do you justify requiring that parent to pay for that meal provided by the school?
7. What are the children learning when they see the school rejecting their parents' meals?
8. MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: Who should be making decisions about children, the parents or the government?
We are living in a regulation nation.....a Nanny State. Families in America are under attack, and right now they are losing the battle. This needs to change. The first way we can get this change done is to replace our President .....and his wife.....in the next election.
P.S. One visit to almost any lunch room getting government subsidy should be enough to show you how much utter waste there is found there. All you have to do is look at how full the garbage bins are after lunch. Schools are required to give the students all the food offered and in the required amounts. It is a "one size fits all" approach, and it is a travesty. There is NO common sense to it. It's not the fault of the cooks. They are doing what they are required to do by the government. I feel sorry for those folks who work so hard to put food out there for the children, only to see so much of it thrown in the garbage can.
1. Why does our government have someone looking through children's lunches brought from home to see if the are "acceptable"?
2. Is there really someone getting paid to be a lunch inspector by our government schools?
3. Is it the school or the parent that knows what a child will eat?
4. Is it the school or the parent that knows what is good for the child to eat?
5. How much food was wasted in this scenario?
6. How do you justify requiring that parent to pay for that meal provided by the school?
7. What are the children learning when they see the school rejecting their parents' meals?
8. MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION: Who should be making decisions about children, the parents or the government?
We are living in a regulation nation.....a Nanny State. Families in America are under attack, and right now they are losing the battle. This needs to change. The first way we can get this change done is to replace our President .....and his wife.....in the next election.
P.S. One visit to almost any lunch room getting government subsidy should be enough to show you how much utter waste there is found there. All you have to do is look at how full the garbage bins are after lunch. Schools are required to give the students all the food offered and in the required amounts. It is a "one size fits all" approach, and it is a travesty. There is NO common sense to it. It's not the fault of the cooks. They are doing what they are required to do by the government. I feel sorry for those folks who work so hard to put food out there for the children, only to see so much of it thrown in the garbage can.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
LCMS President Responds to Pres. Obama's "Accommodation"
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
In response to President Obama’s announcement Friday concerning an “accommodation” to a previous mandate that health plans must cover all forms of birth control (even those that can kill the unborn), The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) remains deeply concerned. We strongly object to the use of drugs and procedures that are used to take the lives of unborn children, who are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception. Drugs such as “Plan B” and “Ella,” which are still included in the mandate, can work post-conception to cause the death of the developing child, so don’t be fooled by statements to the contrary.
We see President Obama’s action Friday as significant, in that it appears to have been prompted by the many voices united in concern over an infringement of our religious liberties. But the “accommodation” did not expand the exemption for religious employers, nor did it restrict the mandate in any way. It simply described a temporary enforcement delay and a possible future change—a change that, unfortunately, would not adequately protect religious freedom or unborn lives.
We remain opposed to this mandate because it runs counter to the biblical truth of the sanctity of human life. We are committed to working to ensure that we remain free to practice the teachings of our faith, that our religious rights are not violated, and that our rights of conscience are retained. Freedom of religion extends beyond the practice of our faith in houses of worship. We must be free to put our faith into action in the public square, and, in response to Christ’s call, demonstrate His mercy through our love and compassion for all people according to the clear mandate of Holy Scripture.
The government has overstepped its bounds. This controversy is not merely about “birth control” and the Catholic Church’s views about it. It’s about mandating that we provide medications which kill life in the womb. And moreover, and perhaps even more ominous, it is about an overzealous government forcing coercive provisions that violate the consciences and rights of its citizens. We can no longer expect a favored position for Christianity in this country. But we can, as citizens of this great nation, fight for constitutional sanity against secularizing forces. As we have vividly experienced in discriminatory state legislation with respect to homosexual adoption, we, and our institutions (and those of other religious citizens of good will), are being robbed of the right to the free exercise of religion absent government intrusion or threat. The next assault will come upon church-related retirement facilities. How much longer will it be legal in this country to believe and act according to the dictates of biblical and creedal Christianity?
Jesus bids us, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). We will pray for and support our government where we can, but our consciences and lives belong to God.
In His peace,
Pastor Matthew C. Harrison
President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
In response to President Obama’s announcement Friday concerning an “accommodation” to a previous mandate that health plans must cover all forms of birth control (even those that can kill the unborn), The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) remains deeply concerned. We strongly object to the use of drugs and procedures that are used to take the lives of unborn children, who are persons in the sight of God from the time of conception. Drugs such as “Plan B” and “Ella,” which are still included in the mandate, can work post-conception to cause the death of the developing child, so don’t be fooled by statements to the contrary.
We see President Obama’s action Friday as significant, in that it appears to have been prompted by the many voices united in concern over an infringement of our religious liberties. But the “accommodation” did not expand the exemption for religious employers, nor did it restrict the mandate in any way. It simply described a temporary enforcement delay and a possible future change—a change that, unfortunately, would not adequately protect religious freedom or unborn lives.
We remain opposed to this mandate because it runs counter to the biblical truth of the sanctity of human life. We are committed to working to ensure that we remain free to practice the teachings of our faith, that our religious rights are not violated, and that our rights of conscience are retained. Freedom of religion extends beyond the practice of our faith in houses of worship. We must be free to put our faith into action in the public square, and, in response to Christ’s call, demonstrate His mercy through our love and compassion for all people according to the clear mandate of Holy Scripture.
The government has overstepped its bounds. This controversy is not merely about “birth control” and the Catholic Church’s views about it. It’s about mandating that we provide medications which kill life in the womb. And moreover, and perhaps even more ominous, it is about an overzealous government forcing coercive provisions that violate the consciences and rights of its citizens. We can no longer expect a favored position for Christianity in this country. But we can, as citizens of this great nation, fight for constitutional sanity against secularizing forces. As we have vividly experienced in discriminatory state legislation with respect to homosexual adoption, we, and our institutions (and those of other religious citizens of good will), are being robbed of the right to the free exercise of religion absent government intrusion or threat. The next assault will come upon church-related retirement facilities. How much longer will it be legal in this country to believe and act according to the dictates of biblical and creedal Christianity?
Jesus bids us, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). We will pray for and support our government where we can, but our consciences and lives belong to God.
In His peace,
Pastor Matthew C. Harrison
President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Hopefully His Last Budget
We now see President Obama's latest budget proposal. In typical fashion, it increases taxes along with including only one significant cut.....to the Defense Department. In addition, President Obama is touting this budget as containing $4 trillion in cuts, included what are "expected savings" from no longer being involved as much in foreign wars. He also includes in that $4 trillion those cuts were previously made as part of a continuing resolution. His proposal also makes rosy assumptions that are not likely to turn into reality. I was involved in proposing school budgets in my days as principal. If I were to use the techniques used by this President while presenting my budget, my school boards would have taken me to the woodshed. They would have then made monumental changes to my proposal to bring it back to reality. I knew better. I always proposed budgets which were similar to my own household budget. Incomes were based on real numbers. Proposed expenses were adjusted based on expected income. My budgets also attempted to put some money away for rainy days. To be fair, our government has not done this regardless of which political party has been in charge for a long time. President Obama, however, has gone beyond the pale. Never have we had a President that proposes government spending in excess of 22% of the GDP four years in a row. I hope this is the last budget we see from this man.
Monday, February 6, 2012
God's Word is Truth
When Jesus taught, even his opponents were amazed at how he taught with such authority. He did not teach as if what He was saying was just His opinion. That's because it was the Truth. God's Word is the Truth. We live in a world that seems to dedicate itself to avoiding the truth. Worldly people want to eliminate the truth, making it relative to whatever situation exists. They try to justify any behavior as acceptable by making everything gray, never a distinct black or white.
It is this approach that has slowly changed our country from one that cherished the sanctity of life to one where abortion is considered acceptable by a large percentage of the population. It is this approach that has taken homosexuality, a behavior which is considered sinful by Scripture, and turned it into an activity that must be tolerated, even celebrated.
Before I go on, let me say that I do not pretend to be an expert at God's Truth. I learn more every time I read the Bible. And, like everyone else, I am a sinner (although the world would like to make NOTHING a sin). I need to daily repent.
This past week, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. During his speech, President Obama used Scripture on several occasions. I would normally applaud that. I would love to think that every President was a Christian who knew their Scripture. However, in this case, the use of Scripture was intended to defend the President's agenda. I believe this is an improper use of the Truth. The Bible has two main purposes: to show how to be saved and to show how to live. The Bible is not a political manifesto. I know he would certainly not use a similar passage which refers to a steward who had been successful and then was told by the owner that he would be put in charge of more. The President was using a passage which fit his agenda, and even then, he was using it out of context.
I was also concerned about other aspects of the President's speech. He always has a tendency to center his comments on himself, and I feel that he did that again in this speech. I think a speech at a prayer breakfast would focus especially on the greatness of God and what He has done. Maybe it was my bias, but I came away from that speech thinking that President Obama talked more about what he has done in his "faith journey" than on the God who ought to get any credit.
Based on what I have heard the President say in the past and comparing it with his actions, I have to admit that I think the President does not know his Scriptures that well and was using this breakfast as another campaign speech. I just have real trouble thinking that he is sincere when he talks about his faith. I wish I could believe him, but I cannot. I found the most appalling thing that he said was in reference to how our actions should match our words. The President is all about making his words sound good to the audience to whom he is speaking. I do not think his actions come anywhere close to matching his words.
America needs repentance. Repentance is an individual act. Each of us needs to confess our sins (and we shouldn't just call them mistakes), beg for forgiveness from God, and turn our lives toward doing God's will. Knowing the will of God can only come by spending time in God's Word. And that is something that should be done by folks on both sides of the aisle. And that includes me.
May God have mercy on me and my country.
It is this approach that has slowly changed our country from one that cherished the sanctity of life to one where abortion is considered acceptable by a large percentage of the population. It is this approach that has taken homosexuality, a behavior which is considered sinful by Scripture, and turned it into an activity that must be tolerated, even celebrated.
Before I go on, let me say that I do not pretend to be an expert at God's Truth. I learn more every time I read the Bible. And, like everyone else, I am a sinner (although the world would like to make NOTHING a sin). I need to daily repent.
This past week, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast. During his speech, President Obama used Scripture on several occasions. I would normally applaud that. I would love to think that every President was a Christian who knew their Scripture. However, in this case, the use of Scripture was intended to defend the President's agenda. I believe this is an improper use of the Truth. The Bible has two main purposes: to show how to be saved and to show how to live. The Bible is not a political manifesto. I know he would certainly not use a similar passage which refers to a steward who had been successful and then was told by the owner that he would be put in charge of more. The President was using a passage which fit his agenda, and even then, he was using it out of context.
I was also concerned about other aspects of the President's speech. He always has a tendency to center his comments on himself, and I feel that he did that again in this speech. I think a speech at a prayer breakfast would focus especially on the greatness of God and what He has done. Maybe it was my bias, but I came away from that speech thinking that President Obama talked more about what he has done in his "faith journey" than on the God who ought to get any credit.
Based on what I have heard the President say in the past and comparing it with his actions, I have to admit that I think the President does not know his Scriptures that well and was using this breakfast as another campaign speech. I just have real trouble thinking that he is sincere when he talks about his faith. I wish I could believe him, but I cannot. I found the most appalling thing that he said was in reference to how our actions should match our words. The President is all about making his words sound good to the audience to whom he is speaking. I do not think his actions come anywhere close to matching his words.
America needs repentance. Repentance is an individual act. Each of us needs to confess our sins (and we shouldn't just call them mistakes), beg for forgiveness from God, and turn our lives toward doing God's will. Knowing the will of God can only come by spending time in God's Word. And that is something that should be done by folks on both sides of the aisle. And that includes me.
May God have mercy on me and my country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)