Obama's Legacy Question

Written: 10/30/13

 I started to put this on FB but decided against it. After watching FOX News and listening to Obama and his coven smirk, twist, and lie their way through interviews, I had to vent. Here goes. If you can’t follow my “chess” analogy, don’t worry, it was hard for me too. Please critique.

O’Reilly missed it today. He’s giving Obama the benefit of the doubt as to whether he lied to America when he promised “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it......” Bill said that Obama has a legacy to think about, and that he would know that if he got caught in a lie it would tarnish it. Therefore, he wouldn’t lie. O’Reilly said his ego won’t allow him to risk the embarrassment of impeachment. Uh, I don’t think so. I think Obama is a pawn in this chess game of power politics. Pawns can reach the other side of the board and become more powerful by replacing themselves with a piece taken by the opponent. Or, he can be sacrificed in order that the other pieces move into more strategic positions to bring victory. Two different outcomes for the pawn but one goal, to put the opponent in checkmate. Either way he’s an important piece (player). In other words, if by lying Obama can buy time and continue the process until it is securely embedded, then being impeached for lying is no biggie.

I believe that there is such a swell of powerful folks determined not to let this opportunity slip through their fingers that they or any of their “players,” including the president, will lie, distort truths, or demonize anyone that gets in the way. Massive control of our lives through healthcare is a prize worth risking all for. Yes, I think our president is capable of just about anything to hold onto this claim to fame. And, even if it could be proven that he lied, I don’t believe conservatives are going to be capable of breaking his hold on power. The press, Hollywood, left organizations, unions, and groups that won’t bite the hand that feeds them have insulated and protected him from the voters and from congress. He is as they say “Teflon" and nothing seems to stick either on him or any of his fellow travelers. He is a pawn that can be played either way which is why I don’t think that Bill’s assessment is correct. His legacy will be intact whether he is impeached or gets to fulfill his presidency. And, he, like any of the others in his circle, would be tickled to be thrown under the bus for this prize—transforming America into a socialist nation. That is the legacy he is interested in and will be remembered for. Presidents come and go and get their pictures hung in the rotunda, but to be THE ONE to achieve socialized medicine, well, ….that’s his and the socialists’ “dream.”

As far as his presidential legacy goes, as long as Obamacare survives, his legacy will be elevated by the left. As America’s position and wealth slip from the top to lesser positions in the world, the left will celebrate having placed freedom and personal sovereignty in “checkmate.” They will joyously announce to the proletariat class, “Now, everyone get in line for your handouts.” Your healthcare will become a handout at the pleasure of politicians and bureaucrats. It will take its place on the list of items to be budgeted for every year, and every year we the people will worry about cuts and new regs—another uncertainty.

Pray the Anchors Still Hold

Do The Anchors Still Hold?

Our music minister, Scott Glass, sang one of my favorites last Sunday morning, "The Anchor Holds." I have often thought about the concept of anchors and how they affect our lives.

Among others, two important anchors are our faith in a living God and our allegiance to upholding the precepts of governing as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have willingly tethered our culture to these anchors. Anchors are "a reliable or principal support, a mainstay, or something that serves to hold an object firmly" (Webster’s) in place.

Anchors protect families. Without a faith anchor, families are tossed about in a sea of competing ideologies and godless philosophies. For several centuries most Americans held the Bible and its wisdom as a high standard for behavior, and, thus, it served as a cultural anchor. Not all citizens were dedicated church-goers or strict in their observance of Biblical guidelines, but most recognized that the wisdom of the Bible was an anchor in people’s lives; it offered absolutes and values that were necessary for a growing nation to survive. It defined personal integrity, and it inspired our forefathers.

Today, faith in Jesus Christ is still an anchor for many people. The anchor of faith in God and His Word keeps us tethered to truth and helps us ride out the storms of life and throw a life-preserver to others who have no anchor. In addition to our faith, the Constitution and Bill of Rights serve as anchors and a protection against unrelenting winds that pressure us to change the course of our nation. Without the anchor of a national commitment to a strict interpretation of our founding documents, our country is at risk of being washed onto the "rocks of internationalism and globalism"–producing a diluted form of government guided only by the whims of the elite and powerful of any nation.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights documents tether us to a solid foundation of government. Our form of government, though not perfect, is definitely superior to the vast collection of systems around the world. This anchor is being gradually pulled in. There are those among us who no longer see the need for a sovereign America with its own exemplary system. They are willing to pull anchor and allow America to drift into a churning whirlpool of systems, no longer distinct in culture, faith, or vision. We talk of the need for assimilating new immigrants into our culture; they think in terms of assimilating America into the global community where conformity is the ultimate goal. God forbid!

Pray that our anchors hold.

I started this post in Sept. of 2007. I'm still working on it. Please excuse my clumsy attempt at using an analogy.

Greed - Envy: Flip Sides of the Same Coin

The flip side of greed is envy. Wish someone would point that out to those who want a percentage of what other folks have earned. Real greed is at work in our culture, but it isn't necessarily evident in all successful companies or in the lives of the wealthy. Real envy is more at work and is a more destructive force. It pits people against each other. Wish someone would explain to me why taxing folks at the top much more than those at the bottom is "FAIR." Fair is taking two apples from the guy with twelve and two from the guy with seven. Whose business is it how many apples a person has? We have lost the meaning of the word fair. Fair means treating people equally no matter what their station in life. Now you may support soaking the rich to support the rest of us, but, please, don't refer to it as "fair." Call it something else--perhaps socialism.

Pelosi Thinks We're Stupid

The most insulting and demeaning statement that a legislator has, in my memory, ever said about the intelligence of their constituency is, (paraphrasing) "We'll just have to pass it so we can know what's in it." Recognize it? That's a N. Pelosi comment in re to the 2400 pg. Obamacare bill. That comment should have resulted in voters demanding a "recall" vote. Every citizen voter she represents should have been enraged at her assumption of their total ignorance and willingness to be deceived. You should be embarrassed. She really does think you are stupid. Are you? Actually, she thinks the rest of us are stupid, too. But...we didn't vote for her; you did.

Welfare vs Charity

Liberal politicians desperately want the electorate to believe that welfare legislation is a moral policy. But, I believe that their true intention is to “buy” votes. If you promise handouts to a group of voters, you are apt to create a “block vote.” Libs fend off any criticism of their proposed legislation by reminding critics of the Christian concept of giving; if the person claims to be a Christian and doesn’t support their views, that person is a hypocrite.  This argument is suppose to disarm all attacks from the conservative-right.

The real hypocrisy lies in the fact that liberals insist on strict adherence to the concept of separation of church and state and, yet, will justify welfare by using the Biblical concept of giving to the needy. They have just crossed their own line. They are promoting a state supported program using Christ or the church as the authority.

Christians, on the other hand, actually comply with the Biblical concept by supporting charitable giving outside of governmental programs.

Welfare enslaves; Charity liberates. Welfare is forcibly taken from the giver-the taxpayer-and given to the recipient with few requirements. Charity is willingly offered by the giver and lovingly given to a needy person or family.  It is without any governmental restrictions or additional involvement on the part of the giver or the recipient.

Charity cannot come through a government office; it must come directly and voluntarily through a person or private organization. Charity may or may not require behavior modifications or counseling in order to receive assistance. Charity may choose to remain anonymous or it may choose to become involved, something that remains the option of the giver.

Are you assaulting our form of government?

Government is the responsibility of every legal citizen. It is our responsibility to protect it from all assaults, both domestic and foreign. If you remain uninformed, you are assaulting it. There is no excuse for ignorance. To get informed start with the founding fathers and learn how much they sacrificed to give us this republic. Many gave the ultimate sacrifice—their lives and fortunes. What have you given? What are you willing to give?

For starters, give your country the time it takes to become an informed citizen. Gaining knowledge of our country's history and the struggles of the founding fathers to create this more excellent form of government is vital. Until you understand clearly what separates us from the rest of the world and what makes our system superior, you aren't ready to make your contribution to preserve it. You've got to know what you are preserving and why it is so important. Do your homework; then join a group. If you don't you may join the wrong one.

National Conventions and Campaigns

(I started this blog the day after the DNC 2008. Finally finished it April 2010. You have to give me something for perseverance.  And here it is 2016 and this still fits.)

My son called last night to see if I was watching the DNC extravaganza. I told him that his dad wouldn't let me. We were back on the history channel bombing the Japanese and Germans. I can see why Don would prefer to watch our country winning a world war than losing a culture war and our country at the hands of the liberals and progressives.

I told him I'd be up til two watching the speeches on C-Span, which I did. Which brings me to this point--both conventions are a total waste of money and should cease to exist. They are Hollywood specials. I'm surprised that they are not part of the Oscars--you know: awards for make-up, weird hair styles, costuming, technical or special effects, best-written-speech-for-a-candidate or supporter. You get the idea.

I am amazed when I think of the percentage of folks who actually tune in and make a decision on whom to vote based on this Hollywood production. What sane person does not see through all of the contrivances, the staged-for-dumb-voters events, the fake, the phony, the glitz, the glamour, the waste of zillions of dollars. Are the "undecideds" totally uninformed; have they never paid attention to government until the last three months before an election? Or, are they willingly being duped?

Do they not possess core values or any fundamental knowledge on which to base their choices? Do they not know the difference between a welfare state/socialism and individual charity/free market, capitalism? Do they not realize that we are a republic, not a democracy? Do they not understand that every human suffering or hardship is not a rationale or justification for moving toward the welfare state. Yes, sad conditions exist for some people economically and physically, but as we seek solutions we need to keep our eyes focused on our Constitution and protecting our representative form of government.