Candidates Should Know the Basics

I recently attended a “Meet The Candidate” event, and given the opportunity to ask questions, I asked, “What do you think of our national motto, and how would that impact—if at all—your governing philosophy?”

Well, talk about a deer caught in the headlights!  The candidate running for U.S. Congress on the Democratic ticket had absolutely no clue. With a puzzled look he asked, “What do you mean?”  So I asked him, point-blank, “Do you know what it is?”  Still, no response. I finally said, “It is ‘In God We Trust.’”  “Oh yes,” he said, “I didn’t understand the context of your question.”
Yeah, right? Then he said he believes in God but wouldn’t impose his religion on others.  In other words, our national motto means absolutely nothing when it comes to his governing philosophy. 

If this is the caliber of candidates we have running for national office we are in serious trouble. A candidate should at least understand the basics of our republican form of government and some simple details like our national motto. If they don’t know those basics, don’t even call yourself an American, no less run for office.

What President Obama's Endorsement of Same Sex Marriage Tells Us.

President Obama’s public statement affirming his endorsement of same-sex marriage reveals quite a number of things about him that should disqualify him from re-election in the minds of any reasonable and intelligent American.

First he said he has “evolved” to this position. This indicate he is not a man of principle but rather “goes with the flow.” In other words, he is like a reed in the wind. Whichever way the people lead him he will eventually go.  That is not leadership, but rather follower-ship.

One doesn’t “evolve” to a lower position. Evolution suggests development, not degradation. Same-sex marriage can only be seen as evolution if one is looking through the wrong end of the historical telescope. “Marriage” defined as the union of a male and a female was brought into the world by the Jewish law, bringing civilization to the earth. Obama would have us devolve to a pre-civilization state. That’s not moving “forward,” but rather backward.

Secondly he said it’s a “generational” thing, indicating that he learned much from his children. I thought it was up to the parents to teach the children right from wrong, not the other way around.

He went on to say that he was influenced by his family and friends, but he neglected to address the millions of Americans of more than thirty states that have codified marriage in state law as the union of a man and a woman. He’s not considering their view. This indicates that rather than being a President of the people, he is President of a special interest group trying to impose their morality on the rest of the nation that is still anchored in a Judeo-Christian standard of morality, which he apparently holds no allegiance to.

This will strengthen our resolve to do all we can to preserve a peaceful,  prosperous, and a developing society for our children. President Obama is continuing to polarize the nation and assuming wrongly that the nation will follow.

This is not about “civil rights” or “marriage equality.” Everyone has the equal right to marriage, but no one has the right to redefine the word to suit their standard of immorality.

Marriage is a non-negotiable issue second only to the life issue. We will fight for those values that have preserved our nation:  our peace, our prosperity and our liberty, and we will do all we can to elect men and women who will lead us in the “right” way.

President Obama's Challenge to the Supreme Court

This past week commentators have been talking about President Obama’s challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. They were speculating on why he would make such patently false statements about the function and role of the High Court, particularly since he taught Constitutional Law at Harvard. The question seemed to be,

“Is he really that ignorant of the role of the Supreme Court, or was he just trying to isolate them as a target for his re-election campaign?”

I believe the answer is neither.

You see, his remarks were totally consistent with his liberal and progressive view of a “Living Constitution.” This was revealed when he spoke of the social consequences that would make striking down the law unacceptable. In other words, in his mind the highest authority was not the original intent of the authors of the Constitution but rather the presumed outcomes to meet the needs of society.

That was the established goal; the Constitution would have to conform to meet those needs, so the Supreme Court would have to rule in favor of the law and the interpretation of the Constitution would just have to conform. You see, President Obama’s idea of Constitutional Law subscribes to the ideology of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes who said in a speech in 1907,

“we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”

That is the ideology of a tyrant, one who sees himself to be intellectually superior to our founding fathers, and by virtue of his “evolved” intelligence he truly believes he knows better than those who have gone before.

No, President Obama didn’t “mis-speak.” He knew exactly what he was saying, and to him it made perfectly good sense. Given another four years to “rule,” and we may lose the last of those stable Constitutional principles that have preserved us a nation.

TRADEMARKING A TRAGEDY

According to the Orlando Sentinel, an attorney for Trayvon Martin's mother confirmed she had filed trademark applications for two slogans -- "Justice for Trayvon" and "I Am Trayvon." – slogans to be used for such things as DVDs or CDs.

This is a horrendous abuse of the name, and in fact, the very life and the death of a young man whose life was tragically ended by circumstances yet unknown.

Jerome Hudson, a spokesman for Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives, says people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton" “…have used this death for all the wrong reasons. They're dancing on his grave," he said.

We must be concerned about justice for everyone. That includes, both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, without prejudice!

Racists and Race-baiters are to be found on left as well as on the right, perhaps more so. We must reject language of race and contain ourselves to the language of “right or wrong,” “legal or Illegal.”

We must reject prejudice on every side, and adhere to the principles of the rule of law, and the legal premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. That principle does not change with circumstances. Let’s get the facts out, apply the law, and let the chips fall where they may. And in the meantime, we must reject racism and race baiting wherever it may be found.

Never--never-- should we trademark a tragedy as was done in this case. It is the worst possible dishonor that can be paid to a young man created in the image of God whose life was unnecessarily and tragically ended. It is abominable.

SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC ISSUES?

There is an ongoing debate among political “talking heads” about whether the Republican presidential candidates should talk about “social” issues or “economic” issues, as if they were two unrelated areas of concern. This is a very shallow view, because the truth is that our economic problems are a product of our social dysfunction.

Let me explain. For example, Rick Santorum has come under fire for being too concerned about abortion, and marriage, yet the greatest indicator of family poverty is the issue of the single parent home. Disregard for the historic place of marriage in the culture, and the casual acceptance of sexual license outside of the marital covenant has done more to propagate poverty than any other single issue.

All the government programs established to address the issue have simply exacerbated the problem, because it is treated as an economic problem instead of a social concern. Though government programs have treated the symptoms, they have also created an atmosphere for poverty to spread and grow like a metastasized cancer. The economic programs may lessen the pain temporarily, but only a return to traditional social values will cure the disease.

When families stay together and are committed to helping one another, and holding one another accountable, economic efficiency is realized and ”waste” is not an issue.

The social values that have provided the most prosperous economic conditions the world has ever seen must be restored if the economy will ever thrive again, otherwise, we’re just medicating the patient with financial morphine, while the disease is slowly killing him.

If Americans don’t understand this, then we must educate America using whatever platform is available. Social and economic issues are not two unrelated areas of concern. We must address the social issues if there is to be any permanent solution to our economic woes.

Obama's Prayer Breakfast Theology

President Obama used the National Prayer Breakfast to espouse his belief that Jesus’ teachings validate his intent to tax the rich. Let’s look at this as a teachable moment.

I addressed this question in one of my previous blogs which Governor Sarah Palin reprinted in her book, “America By Heart.” Here is that excerpt:

Jesus’ teachings called for “healing the sick,” caring for the “least of these,” caring for widows and orphans, and generally, caring for any disadvantaged persons who need help. This is the Biblical imperative. But there is a fundamental truth that cannot be overlooked without missing the whole point of Christ’s message: These instructions were addressed to free people, not to governing bodies. Jesus didn’t say, “Be faithful in your payment of taxes to Caesar so that Caesar can care for the sick.” He always addressed the people, because it was the responsibility of individuals to act out of genuine care and concern for others, not the responsibility of an impersonal government body.

President Obama’s assertion that Jesus’ teachings gives government the authority to compel people to pay higher taxes is a deliberate twisting of God’s Word to gain power to confiscate private property of citizens. A prerequisite for Christian charity is always a willing heart, never compulsion or taxation.

President Obama’s twist on God’s Word to confiscate wealth comes from his background as a student of liberation theology which teaches compulsory redistribution of wealth, or Marxist socialism, not Christian charity.

Who Will Serve Who?

I hear people asking questions like, “How can he (the President) talk about going on a 17 day holiday to Hawaii when this country is in so much trouble? “ and “Why is he always playing golf?,” and so on. It seems as though the presidency of the United States is one big party for him, and if he has to govern a little bit to justify his position, and he can’t get away with just voting “present,” oh, well, he’ll just have to do as little as necessary in between vacations and basketball games.

To understand the mindset of President Obama and others like him, one must understand a fundamental difference between the liberal and the conservative mind.

Conservatives, generally subscribe to the world view that there is a God who reveals himself in the Scriptures as "Lord," and we are His “servants.” He is the absolute; we are the variables. His agenda is set; we must conform our lives to His agenda and standards. The center and ultimate authority for most Conservatives is God.

The center and ultimate authority in the lives of most liberals is “self.” Even those who profess faith in God are easily unveiled by their godless deeds, such as the support for abortion and homosexuality, and their every-day speech which never includes references to God except in a scripted political exercise. President Obama demonstrates by his actions that he is a de facto Secular Humanist. His actions demonstrate a faith in no authority higher than humanity. This naturally leads one to believe that one who has risen to the office of the “leader of the free world” is now due the homage of a grateful people. He is now the center of his universe and pays deference to no one, except, of course, when he must feign humility to maintain his position.

This liberal world view is a universal human condition when God is not in the picture. It is easily seen in every area of public and private life: in the teachers who see the students as necessary for their success, in politicians who choose a constituency that serves their ambition, such as when Hillary Clinton chose to live in New York because she believed New Yorkers would elect her as their Senator. In effect, instead of the politician serving the people, the people are serving the politician. Remember the liberal is the center of his, or her, own universe. This is even seen in liberal religious leaders who see their congregations as stepping stones to career advancement. They are more devoted to their success than they are to a congregation, and so they leave one congregation to pastor another larger congregation advancing their career. They aren’t serving the parishioners as much as the parishioners are serving them!

This natural human condition fits right in with the contemporary humanistic religion based in the false theory of evolution: “Survival of the fittest,” or “Look out for number one.”

The Conservative is not the center of His own universe--God is. And happiness is not found in self-actualization, but rather in pleasing God by serving others. This is demonstrated by the teacher who will work in a private school at half the salary of her public school union member counterparts, because she cares for the children more than she does about herself. This is demonstrated by the politician who puts his constituency above himself even when it means to refrain from running for office. This is demonstrated by the pastor who is devoted to his flock, and will not abandon them for a “larger” church, or a personal promotion.

Conservatism sees government as an agent to support the poor, while modern liberalism practices helping the poor to support the government. That’s why only 33 cents of every dollar that is collected for social welfare programs eventually makes it to the end user. The other 67 cents is absorbed in government. So in effect, we don’t have the government to support the poor; we have the poor to support of the government!

Is it any wonder then, why our founding fathers, in many of the original state charters stipulated that a requirement to hold public office was a belief in God, and in the system of eternal rewards and punishments?

They understood that unless a man (or a woman) truly believed that there was a god watching his every move, he would eventually give in to his natural sinful nature and put personal interests above the interests of the people he’s supposed to be serving. In other words, instead of serving the people, the people would end up serving him—that’s tyranny.

So then, this is what the 2012 election is all about. It isn’t about individuals, or even political parties. It’s about which world view will govern the nation. Will it be progressive liberalism that sees people more as “subjects” to be managed and controlled to meet the needs and desires of the select few in power, or will it be the time-tested ideal that has ruled, since our founding, a conservative view that acknowledges there is only One who is better than the rest of us, and His throne is in the heavenlies. It is now our duty to reflect His love; the love demonstrated on Calvary’s Hill where God sacrificed for the needs of his people.

If the liberal worldview wins, we will be set on the same path as other godless governments, controlled by self-serving, corrupt politicians who believe they are entitled to the benefits of their office because, after all, they are of the highest of the human order—a narcissistic mindset shared with the ruthless tyrants of history.

If the conservative worldview wins out it will only buy us a little more time, hopefully one more generation, to teach our children about the principles that have made America great. And hopefully, they will carry the torch of liberty to following generations.

So then, we know why Obama can “do his own thing,” without serious concern for the rest of us. He believes he is entitled. After all, he is The President. The people exist to serve him. His well being is always first. If they are complaining that he’s taking a 17 day vacation, they need to get over it. After all, he’s the President. The arrogance and ignorance of our founding values demonstrated by his administration, and others who subscribe to his world view, represent the seeds of corruption and ultimately, tyranny.

That’s why every believer and every responsible citizen must be registered to vote in this next election and must vote on Election Day. It’s not about the individual candidates or even the political parties. It’s about two ways of life: liberty or tyranny.

It’s up to us to bring this nation back to those Godly principles upon which we were founded and upon which we have thrived, particularly that principle that states that the president and the government is the servant of the people; the people are not the servants of the president and the government.