Holier than Who?

27 06 2009

Charles Blow’s op-ed in the NY Times titled, The Prurient Trap, is the latest feeble attempt by liberals to broad-stroke conservatives because of Gov. Mark Sanford’s extra marital affair. Blow’s point can be surmised in this single paragraph:

There are Democratic (sic)* sex scandals to be sure, but Democrats didn’t build a franchise on holier-than-thou moral rectitude. The Republicans did. They used sexual morality as a weapon and now it’s shooting them in the foot. They could avoid this hypocrisy by focusing more on what happens in their own bedrooms and avoiding the trap of judging what goes on in everyone else’s.

He goes on to bolster his argument by illustrating how divorce, teenage birth rates, and  subscriptions to online pornography sites are higher in mostly red states. Perhaps Mr. Blow would do well do research his own party’s hypocrisy first: the most polluted states, states with the most uninsured, and states with the highest crime rates are mostly blue states, even though global warming, nationalized healthcare, and social justice are largely liberal issues. Mr. Blow’s obviously never heard of taking the plank out of his own eye before looking at the speck in his neighbor’s.

But I have a couple of questions.

First, since when does a political position on a moral issue become “holier-than-thou”? If liberals weren’t trying to dismantle the foundations of our society, such moral positions by conservatives wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Liberals have driven the Democrat party to the far left by twisting moral issues into political ones, and vice versa. In doing so, liberals have designated themselves the judge and the jury. Poisoned the Well, as the logical fallacy is known. Tipped the playing field in their favor. Holier than who, exactly, I ask? There is right and there is wrong. And those standards apply to everyone. A moral slip-up, by a conservative is not hypocrisy. It’s simply sin. But Mr. Blow and his liberal friends are attempting to apply one standard to conservatives while giving themselves a pass on their own shortcomings.

That leads to my second question. Since when does moral failure by a conservative denote political collapse for the Republican party? Why do results only apply to the Republican party? They obviously never apply to liberals. No, with the Democrat party, it’s only about their good intentions. Take education for example. Liberals have had a stranglehold on the public education system for past 70 years with nothing short of a dismal record. And it’s getting worse. What answer do liberals have? Throw more money at the problem. Result: more failure. Any accountability for this colossal disaster? Of course not, because liberals meant it for good. Alrighty then, have a nice day.

I am not making excuses for any moral failure. Gov. Sanford was wrong. He admitted his mistake and he will probably continue to pay for his sin with his political career. But I have a feeling that we may see more of this liberal “stoning” of conservatives running for office in the future, namely, if Newt Gingrich decides to make a run for president. For now, I’d remind Mr. Blow that his party’s failures are no different that Gov. Sanford’s. Life could be easier for all of us if liberals could manage to compete on a level playing field. Then again, liberals aren’t about making life easier for anyone other than themselves…

* Sex scandals are hardly “Democratic.”





Blue Dog Democrats Voting for Cap and Trade

26 06 2009

There are 52 Blue Dog Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition.

22 of them voted Yes on Cap and Trade (HR 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act) earlier this evening, in a bill that narrowly passed the House 219-212. That’s just over 42% of supposedly “conservative” Democrats voting Yes on a VERY liberal piece of legislation than no one had a chance to even read.

Baca, Joe (CA-43)  225-6161
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)  225-3631
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)  225-3806
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)  225-5235
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)  225-6131
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)  225-4706
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)  225-4311
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)  225-1640
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)  225-2542
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)  225-4231
Harman, Jane (CA-36)  225-8220
Hill, Baron (IN-09)  225-5315
Michaud, Mike (ME-02)  225-6306
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)  225-2865
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)  225-4276
Peterson, Collin (MN-07)  225-2165
Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)  225-2965
Schiff, Adam (CA-29) 225-4176
Scott, David (GA-13)  225-2939
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)  225-6401
Space, Zack (OH-18)  225-6265
Thompson, Mike (CA-01)  225-3311

If you live in any the blue areas below, and your representative’s name is listed above, you need to replace them with a conservative Republican. No excuses.

Blue Dog district map

Blue Dog district map

I count 9 that are from southern states that depend largely on farming. At least 2 others are from mostly conservative states (OH and AZ). We only needed 7 of these 9 to defeat the bill. Every one of these 22 needs be replaced in 2010.

Many are jumping on the  8 GOP turncoats who voted Yes: Bono Mack, Castle, Kirk, Lance, LoBiondo, McHugh, Reichert, and Smith(NJ). But these are mostly RINO’s. Are we really that surprised?

Michelle Malkin asks of the 8 GOP turncoats: “We still want to know: What were your payoffs/earmarks?” Who will ever know?

Dan Spencer at RedState is on the right track:

… it is possible to pass such a plan with a whopping seven vote margin – 219-212, with less than 4% of the favorable votes coming from the loyal opposition and more than 20% of the negative votes coming from the majority party.

It does make wonder what is hidden in all those pages that no Representative really had a chance to read, let alone study, that made the Democrats so determined to avoid a real honest to goodness debate.

I’m more surprised at the 22 of 52 Blue Dogs that voted Yes than I am of the 8 GOP turncoats. But I’m also more confident that conservatives can recruit and elect conservative Republicans in most, if not all, of these 22 districts.





More Broken Promises

24 11 2008

Last week, I discussed Barack Obama’s leftward shift of his party despite the perceived claims to govern from the center. I also said there would be more. Here it is:

Barack Obama told voters during the presidential election that he wanted to work with both sides of the abortion debate to reduce the number of abortions. Yet, over the weekend, he picked a top staffer for one of the biggest pro-abortion groups to become his communications director.

The selection of Ellen Moran, the executive director of Emily’s List, to become the White House communications director makes it clear that the only agenda Obama plans to communicate as president is more abortions.

Moran hails from Emily’s List, a group whose sole mission is to regularly spend tens of millions of dollars on promoting pro-abortion candidates for office.

FRC responds:

As things progress it is becoming clear the so-called “middle ground” on abortion that we were told Barack Obama was pursuing in his campaign might elude him now that he is President-elect. Obama continues to fill key positions with politicians and activists who have radical pro-abortion records. The latest, Ellen Moran, the executive director of EMILY’s List, a pro-abortion political action committee, who will be the face and voice of the new administration as the President’s spokesperson. As the Washington Post put it, “A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial-birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.” Ms. Moran’s fealty to abortion is so strong that after the Supreme Court upheld the ban on partial-birth abortion (a “medical procedure” where scissors and a suction tube are used to kill a partially delivered infant) she saw it as a call to arms to raise more funds for her group to work towards overturning the decision and cut off funding for politicians who voted to ban the gruesome practice. 

None of this comes as any surprise for those who actually studied Obama’s record and possess the ability to understand what a candidate means he says determining when life begins is “above his pay grade” and not wanting to see his own daughter be “punished with a baby.” The real question is, what will “Obama-logists” (Christians who voted for Obama) have to say. So far, their silence has been deafening.





Here We Go… Moving Left

21 11 2008

Barack Obama won the presidency this month by winning a handful of key states that Bush won in 2000 and 2004 and John McCain needed but did not get. There were several key demographics in each of those states that Obama won over to his side that I will address later. Many voters in these states were Christians who mistakenly believed Obama, a self-proclaimed Christian, would certainly not move as far left as their fellow believers were warning them. As a Christian, I must have grace for the poor judgment my fellow Christians displayed in their choice of president (no I-told-you-so’s), but in order for us to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, it is important to point out these errors. 

This “non-I-told-you-so” occurrence I’m referring to is the ambushing by liberal Democrats to unseat Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) from his position on the Energy and Commerce Committee and replaced him with Rep. Harry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman’s overthrow is disturbing to many Democrats, who see the move as spurning the seniority system and an indication that Obama and Pelosi is veering their party sharply left

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats steered the House toward more aggressively tackling global warming and other environmental problems Thursday, toppling veteran Michigan Rep. John Dingell, a staunch supporter of Detroit automakers, from an important energy panel in favor of California liberal Rep. Henry Waxman.

The switch could help President-elect Barack Obama on Capitol Hill with one of his favored issues: trying to curb global warming by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But Waxman’s combative stance on climate change and other issues also could alienate Republicans and moderate Democrats, making it harder to get the bipartisan support Obama will need.

Of course the AP release limits the scope of this leftward coup to environmental repercussions and the automotive business. And this is precisely why it was important for Christians who supported Obama to heed the warnings and not vote for him. Obama’s march leftward is a smoke and mirror show and most Obama supporters cannot tell you the other, more important reason, this appointment is important. 

The Energy and Commerce panel is one of the most important House committees, with sweeping jurisdiction over energy, the environment, consumer protection, telecommunications and health care programs such as sex education and taxpayer funding of abortions. You may remember that Waxman was the one who used your taxpayer dollars to launch unsubstantiated attacks on the validity of abstinence education and pregnancy care centers. 

According to FRC Action, the leadership will not pursue the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) next year. Democrats have decided the issue carries too much political risk. They plan to postpone the legislation until they can chip away at smaller pockets of the values movement. 

With Waxman’s appointment and today’s story that President-elect Obama is delaying the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, it seems the leadership plans to attack life and family by quietly dismantling things that won’t make front-page news like increasing taxpayer funding of abortions, ending conscience protections, and inhibiting free speech. Until they’ve paved the way with these incremental changes, liberals are putting off big ticket items like same-sex “marriage,” FOCA, and gays in the military.

Don’t continue to be fooled, brethren. If you helped vote in a president who stands opposed to these biblical principles because you liked his tune on other issues, here is your proof that he IS a leftist as we said he was. And this won’t be an isolated incident.





A Christian Response to President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama

5 11 2008

Well, it’s the weekend after Barack Obama won the election. I have compiled a collection of responses from a Christian standpoint to his election with some of my own comments sprinkled in. 

After John McCain’s concession speech, several Christian supporters of Obama immediately began quoting Romans 13:1-7. 

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

My first thought was to wonder if they would have had the same response if Obama had lost. If not, then the verse probably isn’t in correct context. I certainly did not have this particular verse locked and loaded to fire at Obama supporters had he lost. I assumed most knew that in American, power belongs to the people. The people temporarily loan it to elected leaders who do not rule over them. They are in place to interpret the Constitution in two areas: condone good and punish evil. Government has overstepped in bounds in the last 200+ years, but presidents who focus on these two aforementioned biblical roles are the most successful. For Americans, these authorities referenced in Romans is not a person, but the Constitution, which is amendable, by the way, by the people. It can also represent an employer or another entity but is not applicable in situations when the authority tramples on the Word of God, which Obama does. 

Also, as a bonus to my precious friends who fired Romans 13 across my bow, I respond with Psalms 2:1-4:

1 Why do the nations conspire  
       and the peoples plot in vain?

 2 The kings of the earth take their stand 
       and the rulers gather together 
       against the LORD 
       and against his Anointed One. 

 3 “Let us break their chains,” they say, 
       “and throw off their fetters.”

 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs; 
       the Lord scoffs at them.

Some said this verse in Psalms was out of context. It’s hard to take a Psalms out of context. Both verses are fully applicable. But I don’t think you can pluck one verse out and quote it to a group of people with whom you have moral agreements with, but variance on a list of political issues. 

And it was clear in this past election which candidate was mocking God: the one who couldn’t define life. 

James White — pastor, apologist, debater, author, and blogger — is on the same page in this video he made the day after the election:

For those wondering what conservatives do next, Michelle Malkin has some good advice:

We stand up for our principles, as we always have — through Democrat administrations and Republican administrations, in bear markets or bull markets, in peacetime and wartime.

We keep the faith.

We do not apologize for our beliefs. We do not re-brand them, re-form them, or relinquish them. We defend them.

We pay respect to the office of the presidency. We count our blessings and recommit ourselves to our constitutional republic.

Several Christians expressed disappointment with “hate speech” and “racism” they had supposedly seen from fellow Christians on social networking sites and in emails. Now, certainly some Christians calling Obama the anti-christ or islamic is a hit below the belt and does not measure up to the standard of perfection placed on Christians. But Obama’s election just helps to show how easy it will be for the anti-christ to deceive the masses and gain such a large unwavering allegiance. Besides, if Christians would bother to study their bible a little, they would realize the anti-christ is not a person. 

Here is the real racism and hate speech. And it’s coming from Obama supporters:

There is a new national slogan/anthem catching on among America’s youth. It’s a popular rap song, a t-shirt, and a taunting chant: “MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK.”

Go ahead and Google it. They’re blasting it on the streets of Chicago, saying it like a prayer in Durham, singing it on campus, and putting it on their kids’clothes in Harlem.

mypresidentisblack1

A sampling of news from around the country after Election Day:

Outside, cars drove across campus, honking triumphal horns as passengers leaned out windows heralding the news of Obama’s unprecedented win. Students giddily repeated the refrain, “My president is black.”

***

You couldn’t find a single copy of the Chicago Tribune or Chicago Sun-Times on newsstands or in boxes anywhere in the city, from Hyde Park up to Evanston. And at least two tricked-out cars on shiny rims that rolled slowly down Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in the historic Bronzeville neighborhood on the city’s gritty South Side were blasting what appeared to be the city’s new unofficial hip-hop presidential anthem: Young Jeezy’s “My President Is Black.”

***

The energy around Benedict’s campus was palpable Wednesday, as students walking to and from classes excitedly discussed the election, some shouting “President Obama!” and singing lyrics to a popular song about Obama by the rapper Young Jeezy, “My President is Black.” 

La Shawn Barber exposes the new racism:

It’s a proud moment for many blacks, to be sure, but having a black man in the White House will not motivate black Americans to wait until marriage to have babies, to stop killing their babies (and at three times the rate of white women), or to stop uttering the word racism whenever they don’t get their way.

Of course, Obama never promised that his presidency would have any effect on these things.

As long as families (the foundation of society) are in shambles, conditions won’t improve much. But with Obama in office, white liberals can feel good about themselves and blacks can feel proud, fatherless children and dead babies be damned.

I don’t want to hear any more complaining from any black Americans about how they can’t succeed, but if La Shawn is right, this election only takes it to a new level.





Recycling We Can Believe In

28 10 2008

Is Barack Obama’s mantra of “change” really anything new? As I’ve noted before, it’s more of a recycling of old-time socialism first brought to political life by Woodrow Wilson and perfected by FDR and his New Deal. 

Voters who are so disgusted with George W. Bush that they will take any candidate of the opposing party need to understand what they are getting in exchange for their loathing. The fact that Obama appears charming lulls these voters into an even deeper trance. But neither hatred of Bush nor sleep-walking with the Pied Piper of Politics is an excuse for the facts.

Jonah Goldberg‘s column in the LA Times today is worth the read:

Wilson, Roosevelt and now Obama — all their ideas sprung forth from the work of John Dewey, the most important liberal philosopher of the 20th century. Dewey held that “natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology,” and that “organized social control” via a “socialized economy” was the only means to create “free” individuals. Dewey proposed that statism be taught as a kind of civic religion in our schools so that Americans could be raised to see the government as the solution to all of our problems. 

Dewey lives on too in the education reform ideas espoused by former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Ayers, now an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, often invokes Dewey when justifying his own dream of indoctrinating public school students in “social justice.” Obama doesn’t condone Ayers’ ’70s-era bombings, but he certainly subscribes to Ayers’ educational vision. In fact, Ayers’ educational work is the primary defense for the candidate’s association with an unrepentant terrorist. 

Much has been made of Obama’s comment to “Joe the Plumber” that things are better when we “spread the wealth around.” The Obama campaign, with the usual willing accomplices, has rebuffed charges of “socialism” or “radicalism” with the usual eye-rolling.

But Obama’s words that day in Ohio were perfectly consistent with his past statements…

Read the rest. It’s a must-read.





Back to Obama’s Future

27 10 2008

What would an Obama presidency actually look like?

Focus on the Family released a chilling letter from a Christian in 2012 (pdf). 

Here is a sampling:

Far-left liberals could hold a 6-3 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nation’s highest court could rule same-sex “marriage” is a constitutional right — in all 50 states.

Preaching from the Bible could be banned from radio and television.

States may not be able to restrict abortion, and taxpayers could be forced to fund abortions.

In several states, it could be illegal to own a gun.

Fear mongering or justified warning?