Obama's Obnoxious Proselytization

Arrogant Hubris Defined

One of the lefts' favorite pastimes is mocking religion, particularly Christianity, for they find it a form of validation of their notion that conservatives and religious people in general are uneducated. It convinces liberals that they are somehow superior to conservatives. And when the left isn't denigrating religion, they also like to use it to taunt their right-leaning counterparts. 

A favorite tool of the left is the acronym, WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) How many times have we heard the ridiculous claim by the left that "Jesus was a liberal"? President Obama whipped out this tactic last week at the Washington Hilton during the annual prayer breakfast.  

First, it is telling that the president is incapable of ceding the annual prayer breakfast to the Lord, instead using the opportunity to further his political agenda. Rather than speak of the blessings of God, Obama took the time to claim that Jesus would approve of his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, saying that it was inherently unfair to ask struggling middle class families to "shoulder the burden alone". Incredibly, he concluded, "But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’ teaching that, from to whom much is given, much shall be required." (He should be careful because I doubt whether George Stephanopoulos was there to correct him if he slipped and mentioned his Muslim faith). 

As a matter of convenience, Obama solicits the Lord to give credence to his plan, which would not be a bad thing if (a), he truly believed it or (b), he was consistent in abiding the Word of God. For example, one must wonder what God thinks of the gluttony of Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Would He approve of the opulent lifestyle of the first family, in such times of distress when people are suffering? 

When someone on the left smugly asks, "What would Jesus do?", it might be prudent to remind them that Jesus would certainly disapprove of murdering gifts from God; unborn babies. Yet the left insists that abortion is a right, while the president himself thinks that one of daughters would be "punished" if she was with child. Is that also in accordance with the teachings of Jesus, Mr. President? 

There is also the issue with lying, misleading or otherwise obfuscating the truth, something this allegedly devout Christian, Obama, does with regularity. Claiming to seek "fairness" in our tax system, Obama lies repeatedly when implying that the poor are paying the tab while the rich ride free. With nearly half the population of the United States (forty-seven percent) paying no federal taxes -- while the top ten percent of the wealthiest pays fifty percent of all taxes -- the question then becomes, who is getting the free ride? And those forty-seven percent are voting for themselves more free stuff. 

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville  

Perhaps, then, Obama doesn't even understand the Jesus quote he so cavalierly used, "From to whom much is given, much shall be required". For the forty-seven percent to whom much is indeed given, it seems the only thing required of them is their vote. And if Obama is referring to the gifts God bestows on the successful, then who is he to require anything? Or did he confuse Jesus' words with those made popular by Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

As evidenced by the selective nature of Obama's faith, the left thinks conservatives are too dumb to realize that they are being duped.  Obama thinks that no one will remember that in his first few months as president, he blew off the National Day of Prayer. He believes that the majority of the slobs he once accused of "clinging to their guns and their religion" will hear him invoke the Gospel and immediately fall into line. 

Democrats have for decades been pushing the notion that compassion can only come from government, and that to resist their magnanimity is somehow cold and heartless. Just as parents, through coddling, raise a child poorly equipped to deal with the realities of adulthood, so have the democrats been fitting the populace for the velvet shackles of dependency, claiming that theirs is the humane way of governing. Now they're resorting to Jesus to sell their wares.

This is one conservative who isn't buying it. 

Sphere: Related Content

Rush In The Crosshairs

For a year leading up to the presidential election in November bloggers such as myself have been sounding the alarm regarding the radical left turn our politicians have been making. We shouted in vain that Barack Obama was an unknown quantity save for his unsavory ties to radicals of many stripes. We warned anyone who would listen or read that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would lead the charge toward the demise of America as we once knew her, and I continue today and for as long as I remain free.

What is perhaps most frightening is that the efforts of the left are no longer scurrilously clandestine but, rather, are becoming bolder by the day. New York senator Chuck Schumer a few weeks ago, speaking about reviving the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", equated free speech with pornography, something which needed to be regulated by the government. Nancy Pelosi just this past week suggested using tax dollars to fund abortions under the auspices that such "birth control" would benefit the ailing economy. Are we heading down the same path as Red China?

The chilling prospect of our government taking control of every aspect of our lives, from what we eat or drink or smoke, moved even deeper into what we say. While there can be an argument made as to the validity of health care concerns, speech that offends is now becoming the focus of government intrusion. What's worse is when government begins targeting specific individuals.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has posted an online petition to silence Rush Limbaugh, and they didn't have the decency to quote him properly. Here is the video soundbite they used:


I guess they don't pay much attention to how things work or they would realize that anyone with a computer can simply go to Rush's website and either read the full transcript of his comments or listen for themselves.

Some will try to claim that this is an innocuous event, but it should scare the bejeebers out of anyone with cognitive reasoning. When the government trains its crosshairs on individuals at all, it should throw red flags up everywhere. When they attack broadcasters, I get even more nervous.

Fashion trends are often circular, they say. Look for brown shirts and jack boots on the runway this spring.

Sphere: Related Content

Colin Powell Gulps Koolaid

I'll Take Another, Make It a Double

Colin Powell is back to making statements that seem to contradict his former perceived ideology, that being one from a republican perspective. It has become abundantly clear that Powell could be considered a RINO - Republican In Name Only - especially after he flipped on the president and more recently shunned John McCain. Finding a note of irony in this development is an easy task, however, as he is now being warmly embraced by the left, the very people who viewed Powell as a "right-wing attack dog" not so long ago.

Powell recently did an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria for Sunday's "GPS" program, and he diagnosed the malady afflicting the GOP. Fortunately, Powell is not a doctor, because his diagnosis is way off the mark. His advice for his former party is to tone down the rhetoric and "stop shouting at the world and at the country". One could only deduce from such a statement that Powell believes that conservatism has been a bullying force that turned off voters.

There are several fallacies in this assessment. The first is the misguided assumption that the left might just warm to conservatism if it is offered up in soothing tones. As has been evidenced lately by liberal protesters, particularly on the west coast, the left is prone to violence. The very people who claim to champion the notion of peace can get pretty nasty when their protestations do not elicit the intended reaction. Therefore, engaging in a pastel attempt at getting them to see the value of conservatism is a futile endeavor.

Furthermore, Powell misfires badly in characterizing the right as shouting at the country. Conservatives or, more accurately, republicans have been too timid in their approach to acheiving their goals. All they have managed to do is further alienate the base. It is this which caused the republicans to lose the executive office and suffer deeper deficits in both houses of congress.

Powell also suggests that we stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. What a glowing endorsement for opponents of free speech. He has effectively emboldened and provided fodder for proponents of the "Fairness Doctrine", lending a perceived credibility to an extremely bad idea.

The remedy to the problems of republicans is to do the exact opposite of Powell's recommendations. We need to stand up and be heard. We need to genuinely shout at the country and let the base know that we are serious when we embrace our ideals. It is the only way to get the base fired up and out the door on election day. We whisper in the shadows in hopes of not offending those in opposition at our own peril, as was demonstrated last November 4th.

Sphere: Related Content

Suddenly Woke Up Minor

If someone had told me 40 years ago that I would one day become a member of the minority in America, I never would have believed them, not in a million years. The very doctrines on which I was reared always seemed to be too steeped in abundant common sense to face any form of serious challenge, and yet here I am, all these years later, contemplating a future of sign-making and protest-marching.

These are acts I have witnessed and sneered at for most of my adult life for the simple reason that I considered them to be colossal wastes of time. Well, wipe the egg off of my face, because it seems that the ink and cardboard that has been used by folks formerly in the minority have ultimately paid for themselves.

I'm not talking about racial minorities here, in case that was the first impression I gave in the opening. What I'm talking about are the people who believe in the misguided notion that the more one hates America, the more they actually love it; people who are absolutely certain that the Founding Fathers of America agree with their own convoluted perceptions of what made this country great, all the while cheering that they have finally succeeded in correcting, once and for all, the heinous injustices that those very founders created.

I must give credit where credit is due, however. The left has been tenacious in its pursuit of its perceived vision of Utopia and has relentlessly hammered most of the formerly sane into submission. So here I find myself now, standing in a clearing and exhaling plumes of steam in the cold, wondering if "they" are watching from the edge of the forest, trying to figure my next move. I don't mind telegraphing such, though; I will gladly tell them what I plan.

I plan to begin to promote the Free Speech Alliance, for starters. I must admit that I find a delicious irony in the fact that someone like me will be advocating for free speech, which is something I always took for granted. Even more ironic is the reality that my new foes are people who have laid claim to fighting for and "championing" that very thing, even as they now scheme to silence the medium that has helped me maintain a glimmer of hope against their rising tide.

As the liberal democrats prepare for their coming monopoly on all things legislative, they are resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine". If they have their way, we conservatives will be relegated to the same stature of former Radio Free Europe consumers, hiding in our shelters, trying desperately to tune into voices of reason on short-wave sets, cocking our heads like the Victrola Dog as we strain to hear through the frequency modulations. Ah, visions of bread lines dance in my head.

I don't know if Newt Gingrich, The Heritage Foundation, et al, have considered this tactic, but I would ask this simple question: if congress wants to ensure "fairness" on the public airwaves, does that mean that every evening newscast with Charles Gibson, for example, will be co-piloted by Rush Limbaugh, or Mike Gallagher? Will The View be required to empanel Laura Ingraham or Monica Crowley on a daily basis? Will Good Morning America be forced to pay Mark Levin or Glenn Beck to appear on the show every morning?

Fairness is a brass ring that already exists. It is evident in the opportunity presented, but not guaranteed to succeed. Liberal voices have had the chance and have failed. The people vote with their radios, and the left has lost embarrassingly. The only recourse is to change the rules. That, I will fight as best I can, even if it means engaging in the dreaded protest march.

Where are my crayons?

Sphere: Related Content