For those genuinely interested in understanding what Christians believe. This discussion can be considered a position paper on the issue of immorality and how God, and Christians as true believers see what is happening in our country, and our world today.
Given the nature of the discussion following the gay marriage ruling last week, one thing that's clear to me as a Christian who opposes gay marriage is that very few secular people - and sadly, by no means all Christians - really understand why Christians take the position we do.
That's why there is so much being said that doesn't really reflect what Christians think. Some say we hate or we judge. Others say we are against love. Some think we're threatened by homosexuals. Some think we object too vociferously because we secretly want to join their ranks. Some even claim we don't think God loves gay people.
None of that is true, but maybe it's understandable that you jump to those conclusions if you're not familiar with the Bible or with the details of Christian doctrine.
What I want to do here is lay out an explanation for the basis of Christian opposition to gay marriage. The intent here is not to convince you if you don't agree, although I'd be glad if I did. If you come away from this feeling that you better understand the Christian position, but still disagreeing with it, then I've accomplished my goal.
First, a few caveats: This explanation is going to reflect my particular denominational bent, which is Pentecostal. I don't think the substance of what I say will differ in a substantive way from any Bible-believing denomination, but I recognize, for instance, that Baptists or Lutherans may not put as much emphasis on the supernatural as I do. Noted. I still think they would mostly endorse the substance of how I'm going to explain this. Also, my target audience here is people with a genuine interest in understanding. The fire-breathing ideologue who is simply spoiling for a fight about anything and everything is going to do what he or she always does. That's not my problem.
Finally, I understand that some of you don't believe in God or in anything spiritual, and for you, all of this is absurd on its face. You're still welcome to gain an understanding if you'd like, even though I recognize you will not accept the basic premise behind any of it.
With that said, let's start by establishing a basic point about the Bible. The Christian (present company included) believes that the entire Bible is the inspired Word of God. The various writers wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so we don't believe it was merely "written by men," and we also believe that God has protected His Word over the course of centuries with new translations to reflect modern language - by choosing godly men and women to lead those translation processes.
That's why, when we cite the Bible, we treat it as authoritative.
Also, since every writer of the Bible was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it doesn't matter when people argue that "Jesus never said anything" about this or that. Just because an issue isn't specifically referenced in the red-letter words of Jesus (although the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman actually is, which we'll get to shortly) doesn't mean Scriputure had nothing authoritative to say on the matter.
Now, let's establish beyond any doubt what Scripture says about homosexual sex. I have five passages for you, starting with Romans 1:24-28:
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
This passage clearly establishes that God intended a natural order for how we would receive and engage in the gift of sexual activity, and it likewise establishes that homosexual sex is outside that established order. It also establishes that there is a penalty for this. Loving Christian people want to see gay people spared of the pain of that penalty.
Next, let's look at Mark 10:2-9:
2 The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.
3 And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”
5 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
Jesus is answering a question from the Pharisees about divorce - one of their typically pathetic attempts to trap him - and in the course of answering, Jesus lays out God's clear plan for marriage, affirming that it is indeed between a man and a woman. There are people who argue implausibly that Jesus only phrased it this way because, in that day and age, He couldn't have conceived of gay marriage. That's transparent nonsense. As the Son of God, Jesus knew everything that would ever happen. And Jesus introduced lots of concepts into His teaching that were radical in His day. If He had been OK with gay marriage, this was the perfect opportunity to say so. Instead, he affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Next, let's look at Leviticus 20:10-18:
10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. 11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. 12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall beupon them. 13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their bloodshall be upon them. 14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it iswickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you. 15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them. 17 ‘If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt. 18 If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.
Now I realize many will focus on the "put to death" aspect of this, and that's where you have to understand the difference between moral law and ceremonial law. A lot of people cite prohibitions against things like eating shellfish as evidence that Leviticus is just full of random nonsense. No. Those are laws specifically for the Israelites about remaining ceremonial clean for entering the Temple and offering sacrifices to God. Those are ceremonial laws.
The death penalty proscribed for these sins is likewise a penalty under ceremonial law, but make no mistake, God views the actions described as moral sins, and the reason I included so many other examples is to establish that there is such a thing as sexual morality, and there are limits to it. God intends sex to be enjoyed within marriage between a man and a woman who are not closely related to each other, and He is very stern with those who engage in sexual immorality - as defined in great detail in this passage. That's because God establishes that when you unite with someone physically, you also unite with them spiritually - and He only wants you to unite spiritually with one person. Your spouse. Of the opposite sex. Taking on the spiritual iniquity of others with whom you were never intended to unite is a very dangerous game, and God is trying to warn you against doing so.
Next, 1 Timothy 1:8-11:
8 But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, 9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.
Just to be clear, sodomites are those who engage in sodomy (referenced in other translations as those who practice homosexuality) and fornicators are those who engage in sex outside of marriage.
Finally, James 1:14-15:
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
I included that last passage not just to show that desires of the flesh are sinful, but also to show that sin has ultimate spiritual consequence, which is torment in your life and ultimately death.
Now, I know that's a lot of Scripture, so let me pull it together. Every one of us is born into sin. For the homosexual who says, "I was born this way," I will not argue. We were all born with sinful urges of our flesh. Some struggle with anger. Some struggle with heterosexual lust. Some struggle with gluttony or addiction to alcohol. And some struggle with homosexual urges. These are our desires. They come from the flesh and they war against the spirit.
God's desire for each person is that they will repent of those desires and surrender to Him so that He can deliver them from these urges by the power of Christ. The Christian who loves as God loves certainly does not a hate another human being for having sinful desires of the flesh. We have them too. We need the power of Christ to be delivered from them. But crucially, we recognize that these urges are sinful and we want to be delivered from them so we can be in a right relationship with God, and receive the fullness of His blessings in our lives.
I understand why some Christians struggle with this. They know a gay person, or maybe have a gay family member, and they want that person to be happy. It's enticing to accept the "love is love" argument and to believe that surely God wants that gay person to be in a loving relationship.
But that argument wrongly conflates love with sex. There are a lot of different kinds of love. Hopefully you love a lot of people, but you only have sex with one person - the one to whom you're married. If you want a gay person to know love in a romantic/sexual relationship, good, so do I. So I will pray that this person is delivered from those urges through the blood of Jesus so that he or she can find the mate of the opposite sex that God always intended for them to come together with.
For a Christian to encourage a gay person in the consummation of a gay "marriage" is to encourage their permanent indulgence in a lust of the flesh that Scripture clearly tells us God finds detestable, and to suffer all the spiritual consequences that come with that. It would be like encouraging you to go hiking down a path where we know a deadly wild animal is waiting to devour you. Far from hating you, we're loving you by warning you of the consequences and urging you to repent - which literally means to turn back and change directions.
That's why the Christian baker doesn't want to bake that wedding cake, and why the Christian adoption agency doesn't want to process those papers, and why the Christian church won't perform the ceremony. And that's why so many people like me won't be cloaking our Facebook profile pictures in the rainbow colors. What we want for you is something better than your flesh is leading you to, and we're praying for you to receive it. We're not going to encourage you to follow the desire of your flesh instead of the light God wants to put in your spirit.
I hope that by reading this, some of you gained a better understanding of the Christian position on gay marriage, and why a Bible-believing Christian can never accept it. If you did - even if you still disagree - I did my job.
Dan just served as editor of a fantastic book by Katherine Jeffries about a secret vigilante organization. It's called Stranglehold and you can download it here. Dan's Royal Oak Series of spiritual thrillers is available here. Follow all of Dan's work by liking his page on Facebook.
Monday, June 29, 2015
What Just Happened????
5 days before Obama's inauguration in 2009 he openly declared that "in 5 days the fundamental transformation of America will begin". Lefties cheered, danced and welcomed the death of America as we've always known it. Well, with the SCOTUS rulings this past week, Obama can now claim victory. The transformation in complete. America is done.
Khruschev said (paraphrasing) that the US could never be made a communist state by simply electing a communist. It would take years to change the traditions, culture, and politics of America. He added that the surest way to do that would be to infiltrate the political system, and the best way to do that would be through the democrat party. Obviously he was already familiar with Woodrow Wilson, FDR and other democrat politicians who favored a "socialist" form of government. Wow, was he ever right.
It's time to quit calling the democrat liberals "socialists". That's just a PC code word for communism. And don't forget that political correctness began in the old Soviet Union where speaking out against USSR leadership and/or communism in general meant a lifelong vacation in Siberia, or execution. And under communism, literally millions were executed for speaking out, or acting out against the state. So let's be accurate, what the libs have done to this once great nation is to fundamentally transform it into a communist state.
The liberals biggest victory may have been taking over the educational system which has been slowly indoctrinating K-16+ with far left, communist doctrine. If you question that, just take a minute to look at the ideologies of today's socialist curricula. Teachers, professors, deans and entire universities are teaching our youth to hate the American system. Aiding and abetting them are entertainment and major media leftiests. If you're still not convinced just take a look at todays under
35 generation. The Pajama Boy crowd. These are the people that are going to restore freedom and liberty?
We can go on and name more examples such as the IRS, NSA, EPA, DOJ, our medical system, death of morality, political correctness running wild, war on religion, a Supreme Court that disregards and defies the language and intent of our constitution by making rulings that Supreme Court Justice Scalia says will destroy the country.
I'm afraid the end is in sight. We who love the country have lost. Long ago we lost a Republican Party that would have fought to right the wrongs done by libs. Today we have a party that is too weak, too unintelligent, too selfish and too useless to change things. (Worthy exceptions noted). The entire constitutional system would have to be restored to save us and the problem with that is there probably aren't enough proAmericans left to elect such people. You certainly won't find any in this pro-Islamic WH or in this power crazed congress.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
OBAMA...THE WHO WHAT WHERE WHEN WHY AND HOW, NOW HILLIARY
"The most charitable way of explaining the election results of 2012 is that Americans voted for the status quo - for the incumbent President and for a divided Congress. They must enjoy gridlock, partisanship, incompetence, economic stagnation and avoidance of responsibility. And fewer people voted.
> But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues - of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentives looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.
Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.
They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds . People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority - are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!" Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy - of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future.
The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's expense and at Israel 's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.
A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.
Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.
The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
_______________________________________
> But as we awake from the nightmare, it is important to eschew the facile explanations for the Romney defeat that will prevail among the chattering classes. Romney did not lose because of the effects of Hurricane Sandy that devastated this area, nor did he lose because he ran a poor campaign, nor did he lose because the Republicans could have chosen better candidates, nor did he lose because Obama benefited from a slight uptick in the economy due to the business cycle.
Romney lost because he didn't get enough votes to win.
That might seem obvious, but not for the obvious reasons. Romney lost because the conservative virtues - the traditional American virtues - of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness - no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate.
The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.
Every businessman knows this; that is why the "loss leader" or the giveaway is such a powerful marketing tool. Obama's America is one in which free stuff is given away: the adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who - courtesy of Obama - receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentives looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.
The defining moment of the whole campaign was the revelation of the secretly-recorded video in which Romney acknowledged the difficulty of winning an election in which "47% of the people" start off against him because they pay no taxes and just receive money - "free stuff" - from the government.
Almost half of the population has no skin in the game - they don't care about high taxes, promoting business, or creating jobs, nor do they care that the money for their free stuff is being borrowed from their children and from the Chinese.
They just want the free stuff that comes their way at someone else's expense. In the end, that 47% leaves very little margin for error for any Republican, and does not bode well for the future.
It is impossible to imagine a conservative candidate winning against such overwhelming odds . People do vote their pocketbooks. In essence, the people vote for a Congress who will not raise their taxes, and for a President who will give them free stuff, never mind who has to pay for it.
That engenders the second reason why Romney lost: the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is ignorant and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters - the clear majority - are unintelligent and easily swayed by emotion and raw populism. That is the indelicate way of saying that too many people vote with their hearts and not their heads. That is why Obama did not have to produce a second term agenda, or even defend his first-term record. He needed only to portray Mitt Romney as a rapacious capitalist who throws elderly women over a cliff, when he is not just snatching away their cancer medication, while starving the poor and cutting taxes for the rich.
During his 1956 presidential campaign, a woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Stevenson called back: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!" Truer words were never spoken.
Obama could get away with saying that "Romney wants the rich to play by a different set of rules" - without ever defining what those different rules were; with saying that the "rich should pay their fair share" - without ever defining what a "fair share" is; with saying that Romney wants the poor, elderly and sick to "fend for themselves" - without even acknowledging that all these government programs are going bankrupt, their current insolvency only papered over by deficit spending.
Similarly, Obama (or his surrogates) could hint to blacks that a Romney victory would lead them back into chains and proclaim to women that their abortions and birth control would be taken away. He could appeal to Hispanics that Romney would have them all arrested and shipped to Mexico and unabashedly state that he will not enforce the current immigration laws. He could espouse the furtherance of the incestuous relationship between governments and unions - in which politicians ply the unions with public money, in exchange for which the unions provide the politicians with votes, in exchange for which the politicians provide more money and the unions provide more votes, etc., even though the money is gone.
Obama also knows that the electorate has changed - that whites will soon be a minority in America (they're already a minority in California) and that the new immigrants to the US are primarily from the Third World and do not share the traditional American values that attracted immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is a different world, and a different America . Obama is part of that different America , knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.
Obama also proved again that negative advertising works, invective sells, and harsh personal attacks succeed. That Romney never engaged in such diatribes points to his essential goodness as a person; his "negative ads" were simple facts, never personal abuse - facts about high unemployment, lower take-home pay, a loss of American power and prestige abroad, a lack of leadership, etc. As a politician, though, Romney failed because he did not embrace the devil's bargain of making unsustainable promises.
It turned out that it was not possible for Romney and Ryan - people of substance, depth and ideas - to compete with the shallow populism and platitudes of their opponents. Obama mastered the politics of envy - of class warfare - never reaching out to Americans as such but to individual groups, and cobbling together a winning majority from these minority groups. If an Obama could not be defeated - with his record and his vision of America , in which free stuff seduces voters - it is hard to envision any change in the future.
The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy - those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe - is paved.
For Jews, mostly assimilated anyway and staunch Democrats, the results demonstrate again that liberalism is their Torah. Almost 70% voted for a president widely perceived by Israelis and most committed Jews as hostile to Israel . They voted to secure Obama's future at America 's expense and at Israel 's expense - in effect, preferring Obama to Netanyahu by a wide margin.
A dangerous time is ahead. Under present circumstances, it is inconceivable that the US will take any aggressive action against Iran and will more likely thwart any Israeli initiative. The US will preach the importance of negotiations up until the production of the first Iranian nuclear weapon - and then state that the world must learn to live with this new reality.
But this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline.
Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations.. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.
The "Occupy" riots across this country in the last two years were mere dress rehearsals for what lies ahead - years of unrest sparked by the increasing discontent of the unsuccessful who want to seize the fruits and the bounty of the successful, and do not appreciate the slow pace of redistribution.
If this election proves one thing, it is that the Old America is gone. And, sad for the world, it is not coming back."
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.
_______________________________________
Sunday, June 7, 2015
The Obama Oligarchy
The below summary of Barack and Michelle Obama's 5 - year
reign in the White House is by far the best I've ever read as it
squarely hits the nail on the head.
It took a black female reporter writing it to make it as effective
as it is. A white man's account would be instantly criticized
by the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone
scream Racist when an exacting description of the Obamas
is penned by a well- known journalist of color?
BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA EVER!
(Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.)
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obamas.
Specifically, I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obamas? It seems
personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family
picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I
certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt
for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned
question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change
of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind
of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They
display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing
to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect,
no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her
citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs.
Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans
made Americans feel good about themselve s and about what we could accomplish.
His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing Congress is
impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head
to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice
Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians, and all politicians are known and pretty much expected
to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie. But even using that low standard, the
Obamas have taken lies, dishonesty,deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation
to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus
for civility.
I do not like them because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard
Professor Louis Gates when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and
her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that
statement and that mind set as an insult to those who died to provide a country where
a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny could come and not only
live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every
description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that. I have a saying, that
"the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide."
No President in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and
his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when
and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance,
Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from
his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement,
ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.
He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself
with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that
protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support.
He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card
(arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because,
as people are suffering, losing their homes,their jobs, their retirements, he and his
family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating
and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of
them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our
people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the
Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional
authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do
with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly
playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms
the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President
Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario
known to man, whereby a white President and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their
position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life,
inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.
He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low
standards of his Presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance
is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected
President, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a First Lady who
has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a
commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their
life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry
and unemployed.
reign in the White House is by far the best I've ever read as it
squarely hits the nail on the head.
It took a black female reporter writing it to make it as effective
as it is. A white man's account would be instantly criticized
by the liberal media as pure racism. But, how can anyone
scream Racist when an exacting description of the Obamas
is penned by a well- known journalist of color?
BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE OBAMA EVER!
(Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles.)
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obamas.
Specifically, I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obamas? It seems
personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family
picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I
certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt
for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned
question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change
of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind
of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They
display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing
to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect,
no I demand respect, for the Office of President, and a love of our country and her
citizens, from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs.
Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans
made Americans feel good about themselve s and about what we could accomplish.
His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing Congress is
impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head
to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice
Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians, and all politicians are known and pretty much expected
to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie. But even using that low standard, the
Obamas have taken lies, dishonesty,deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation
to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus
for civility.
I do not like them because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard
Professor Louis Gates when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and
her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that
statement and that mind set as an insult to those who died to provide a country where
a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny could come and not only
live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every
description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do that. I have a saying, that
"the only reason a person hides things is because they have something to hide."
No President in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and
his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proven to be lies. He lied about when
and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance,
Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from
his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement,
ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address.
He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself
with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that
protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support.
He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card
(arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because,
as people are suffering, losing their homes,their jobs, their retirements, he and his
family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating
and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of
them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our
people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the
Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional
authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do
with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly
playing the race card.
I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms
the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President
Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario
known to man, whereby a white President and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their
position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life,
inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader.
He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low
standards of his Presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance
is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected
President, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a First Lady who
has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a
commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their
life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry
and unemployed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)