Tagged: President Obama Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 21:13:54 on 2016/01/18 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , President Obama,   

    Hillary Clinton’s Play for President Obama’s Approval Has Republicans Foaming at the Mouth 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Let’s be crystal clear. Hillary Clinton’s primary goal in speaking to millions of people during last weekend’s Democratic Debate was to address a single person: President Obama. She had been advised that if the President, Vice President Joe Biden, and other past and current members of the Administration didn’t support her, that she could lose. To win their support, she had to come out by promising to honor their work and keep it in play. She had to come out in defense of his legacy in order to get them on board with her campaign.

    Don’t expect the President to come out publicly. Definitely expect members of his staff to hit the phones and let their allies know who should be getting endorsements and donations. This was smart politics for Clinton. It’s also exactly what the Republicans wanted to happen.

    “We have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of our country,” she said.

    You don’t have to memorize that line. It’s going to be hammered into our conscience almost as hard as her husband played on the phrase, “Read my lips. No new taxes.”

    It is extremely difficult for a party in the modern era to maintain control of the White House following a two-term President. Al Gore was extremely popular following Bill Clinton, but he was outmaneuvered in the end. This is part of the ebb and flow of American politics to rotate both the executive and legislative branches to maintain a balance. It’s not coordinated necessarily, but dissent is easier to muster than support in a world where things are going wrong every day.

    Hillary Clinton is hoping for a George H. W. Bush moment. While she would love to win the nomination and the Presidency based solely on her merits and policy proposals, she has decided to cave to the third-term effect. She’s hoping that President Obama’s popularity will carry over to her. She reluctantly hopes to win by being the only candidate who will defend President Obama’s actions and legacy and she has a plan to present the Republicans (and Bernie Sanders) as the people who will try to dismantle the “great things” that President Obama has done.

    For Republicans, this simply adds to a growing list of attack points. They already have Benghazi, though it’s unclear whether or not that will be able to play well in the general election. They have the email controversy which will likely continue on until November. They have her complicity in Bill Clinton’s war on women which will definitely continue throughout whether it’s helpful or not. Now, we have her defending things that are clearly broken. It’s not exactly a coup for the Republicans, but it’s great fodder for the campaign strategists to consume.

    It pains Clinton to have to resort to playing the “Obama Third Term” card. She really doesn’t like the guy and doesn’t want to ride his coattails, but it may be required for her to get the nomination quickly. That’s just fine with us. The more she attaches to Obama, the easier it will be for Republicans to take her down in November.

  • feedwordpress 02:40:46 on 2015/12/06 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , President Obama, ,   

    Blame Gun Laws, Defend Islam, Rinse, Repeat: The Terrorist Media Coverage Wash Cycle 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    According to the Obama administration and mainstream media with their strings by the same puppet masters, the biggest problem we face is not radical Islamic terrorists but rather weak gun laws. Let’s put aside that California has the toughest gun laws in the country or that the threat of radicalization from the Islamic State’s propaganda and recruitment machine is more powerful than anyone is willing to admit. Instead, let’s focus on why all of this happens.

    It goes against the liberal narrative to believe that any one religious group can be more dangerous than others. It also goes against the liberal narrative to think that having more “good guys with guns” hanging around public locations might have more of a positive effect in the fight against rampant crime and growing terrorism than pushing to disarm the good guys and hoping that the bad guys will comply.

    The problem isn’t ignorance. It isn’t even a sense of righteousness to believe that radicalization doesn’t happen primarily in Islam or that tightening gun laws will have a positive effect. It all comes down to perpetuating the narrative for the rest of President Obama’s term and the media’s hope that Hillary Clinton will be able to pick up his mantle and carry the agenda forward.

    I once felt that the liberal mindset was simply a matter of taking the easier and clearly more destructive path. I thought that the sales pitch sounded good and therefore those who espouse it and those who promote it are doing so because they didn’t think through the implications. I’m now firmly of the belief that politicians and the media are aware that they don’t make sense but they have to continue down this road for a more nefarious reason.

    It could be pride. Bad things have happened based upon a stubborn willingness to ignore facts and promote a false ideology. It could be conspiratorial with some hidden “powers and principalities” behind the scenes setting the world down a path to destruction. It’s likely somewhere in between. Regardless of the reason, it’s time for Americans to wake up. The liberal agenda is starting to do serious harm and it’s approaching a point where we have no path to recovery.

    Let’s take a look at the narrative versus reality.

    Gun Laws

    I’m going to make this as simple for even a liberal mind to understand as possible. The increase in violence that we’ve seen in recent years is not the result of lax gun laws. If that were the case, we’d see the numbers leveling out because the gun laws have not been lightened in the time immediately before or during the rise. If the gun laws worked to keep mass shootings down before and they haven’t changed much since, then they are not the core problem. That’s undeniable.

    Also, if gun laws equated to safety from gun violence, then New Hampshire with their extremely freedom-oriented gun laws would be a magnet for gun violence while a city like Chicago with Draconian gun laws would be a safe haven of peace and tranquility. We know that the opposite is closer to the truth.

    The narrative, as eloquently displayed on today’s NY Times front page editorial, is a perfect example of how false logic is applied to achieve an end even if the means requires subterfuge and deceit. The liberal government and mainstream media need as many people as possible to believe that the solution is with gun laws rather than empowerment of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their communities. That would make too much sense for liberals to comprehend.

    Radical Islamic Terrorism

    The narrative as it pertains to terrorism is one that has many points of attack. They can attack the idea that there are Christian, Hindu, and even atheist bad guys out there who do the same type of harm as radical Islam. They can point out that over a billion Muslims are not terrorists. They can look to the Koran and pick out phrases that sound peaceful.

    The reality isn’t very far off from the narrative. Most Muslims are not dangerous and do not want to do harm to non-Muslims. However, it doesn’t take a majority to commit jihad. It doesn’t take a large number of terrorists to kill by the dozens, hundreds, or even thousands.

    The problem with the narrative is this: it will not protect Muslims from backlash by the bigots. Yes, there are plenty of Americans who would rather the country be completely Muslim-free just as there are plenty of Americans would would rather the country be Hispanic-free. A narrative of peaceful, fun-loving Muslims will not prevent bigotry. It will, however, infuriate the majority of Americans who believe three truths:

    • Most Muslims are not terrorists.
    • Some Muslims are.
    • We need to be diligent and call a spade a spade rather than dancing around the topic with political correctness.

    The only way we’re going to be able to maintain safety in this country is to flush the narratives and deal with realities. The truth may offend some people, but hurt feelings are the price that must be paid to keep Americans safe.

  • feedwordpress 12:55:44 on 2015/11/23 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , President Obama, ,   

    President Obama Must NOT Wait Until an Attack Before Getting Serious About the Islamic State 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Let’s state a fact. Some will say that it’s not a fact, but I’ll demonstrate why it is indeed a fact here shortly. The fact is this: if the United States continues with its current policy regarding the Islamic State, there will be a major terrorist attack on American soil perpetrated directly by the Islamic State or its supporters.

    The obvious question would be how this can be construed as a fact. There are no indications that we’re any closer today than we were a couple of months ago to being attacked. The reason we can state it as factual is because the current policy regarding the Islamic State is no working and every day that they’re allowed to exist increases the chances of someone doing in America what they did in Paris, Beirut, the Russian passenger jet… or worse. It’s not a question of if but rather when it will be successful. With the FBI investigating 1,000 active potential Islamic State threats on United States soil, there’s no way to keep them all. Our law enforcement agencies are the best in the world but the numbers are stacked against them.

    Some would say that the President will not do anything and therefore the best we can do is to wait for the next President to get into office. That’s not good enough. We’re over a year away from someone new in the White House and things are escalating with the Islamic State. It’s not just their military that needs to be eliminated. It’s their ideology. It’s the anger being felt by Muslims that are approaching the point of radicalization. It’s the risk of infiltration by the Islamic State among the Middle East refugees. It’s the tipping point that America and the world is reaching where the specter of terrorism is finding its way out of the dark corners and onto main street USA in some unsuspecting city.

    There are those who say we should have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks based upon intelligence and the history of attacks that led up to the tragedy. They might be right, but if there’s one notion that should not be forgotten its that they had the unfortunate luxury of complacency. Today, we do not have that luxury. Even a decade and a half removed from 9/11, the risks are still present in the minds of law enforcement, politicians, and the general population. Add in the three major terrorist attacks in recent weeks and we should no longer allow any form of complacency.

    Islamic State in America

    Paris isn’t Beirut, and while it’s unfair to view the two through different filters, it’s clear that Paris is too similar to American cities to ignore. I’m personally very aware of the terrorism and radical Islamic ideology that kills people every day around the country, but I don’t fault the general population for viewing it from a different perspective. Paris is a shared perspective. If it can happen there, it can happen here.

    Knowing this, there’s no excuse for waiting. There’s no reason that we should wait around for a terrorist attack to happen before acting to stop it. That’s not to say that nobody’s trying. It’s to say that the President of the United States is not trying hard enough. He has a history of underestimating the threat from the Islamic State and the American people are finally starting to realize the error in his ways. We must keep the pressure up, whatever pressure we have available to us, in order to bring the President to his senses. He’s clearly not seeing this straight. His judgment is clouded. Whether it’s by his lame duck status, his unearned Nobel Peace Prize, or by the hopes that nothing will happen until someone else takes over shouldn’t really matter. The reason is unimportant. The necessity for change is all that matters.

    Even if the President gets more aggressive, an attack still might come. However, if he doesn’t change his policy, an attack will almost certainly come. We have to act which means he has to act. Otherwise, we’re playing directly into the hands of the Islamic State.

  • feedwordpress 01:12:02 on 2015/11/14 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , Paris, , President Obama,   

    The Islamic State Must be Destroyed Immediately 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    The Islamic State is not just in Syria and Iraq. They aren’t even relegated to the Middle East. They have spread their untraceable tentacles around the world in a way that the President of the United States and his advisers simply do not seem to understand or accept.

    Now is not the time to politicize this issue and I have no intentions of attacking the actions or lack thereof from our Commander-in-Chief or any politician. I won’t point to what certain Republicans would do. We don’t have time to wait for the election. Regardless of political affiliation or religious doctrine, we must support the current President and guide him to the realization that the Islamic State cannot be handled the way our current policy is dictating. To get a glimpse of what that policy is, President Obama was asked about it the day before the attacks in Paris.

    They are not contained, nor can the possibly be contained. Their land grabs in the Middle East are only part of the war that they’re waging. They aren’t just an army. They’re an idea, a beacon that can bring out the most extreme core of angry Muslims yearning to serve their god and his prophet. The longer that the Islamic State is allowed to exist militarily, the greater the threat will be for people around the world.

    We all know about Paris. Most believe that the Russian passenger jet that crashed from Egypt was taken down by a bomb planted by Islamic State sympathizers. They have reached into Beirut, Lebanon, to fight their enemies in Hezbollah. There haven’t been attacks like these in the United States in recent years, but the FBI is actively probing nearly 1000 Islamic State cases.

    The victories by the armies of the Islamic State embolden potential attackers around the world while their defeats enrage them. We cannot afford to allow the swelling of support they are receiving and the number of potential terrorists they’re recruiting to continue. The only way to stop it at this point is through absolute annihilation of the group at its heart.

    It’s not about air strikes. It’s not about a few dozen special forces units. Now is the time for the United States and Russia to join forces with every other willing military in the world for the most important battle the world has seen since World War II. It would have been possible for Hitler to have been stopped and the deaths of millions of Europeans, Asians, and Americans to have been avoided if the world had been willing to act decisively before it was too late.

    With the Islamic State, it’s approaching that tipping point of being too late.

    Just as the military victories embolden and the defeats enrage, the actions abroad from agents of the Islamic State encourage Muslim extremists. It gives them hope that they can be successful in their ordered missions, that they can be a part of something that will, in their view, grant them eternal life with 72 virgins. They are motivated. The longer that the Islamic State is allowed to exist in its current form, the more attacks there will be everywhere in the world.

    They will hit the United States at some point if they’re allowed to continue. While law enforcement has done exceptionally well at keeping us safe in recent years, there is nothing they can do to stop the influx from the shadows that will exist in perpetuity while the Islamic State continues.

    This isn’t like 9/11. They learned that America would not crumble completely from a single attack. The Islamic State is not al Qaeda. They are far worse and they will only grow until they are cut off at the source.

    Again, this isn’t the time to politicize things, but in case there needs to be some additional incentive, here it is. If President Obama and President Putin came together to unite for the unilateral destruction of the Islamic State, both would be solidified in the history books as the men who put their great differences aside to save the world.

    President Obama and Vladimir Putin

    We cannot wait for the forces in the Middle East to get their acts together. We cannot hope that Russia will be able to do it on their own. There is no time to wait. President Obama, you must lead this country and the world right now or all will be lost.

  • feedwordpress 06:54:53 on 2015/11/06 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , Piers Morgan, , President Obama,   

    Imminent Threat or False Flag? Even @piersmorgan Wants Action Against Islamic State. 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    With the press in the US and the UK growing increasingly convinced that the Islamic State is responsible for taking down a Russian passenger jet in Egypt, it appears that action must be escalated to meet this growing world threat. The last person I would have expected to see this is Piers Morgan, but here he is calling for attacks.

    There’s a little bit of irony in this for me, personally, because I don’t think much of Morgan. It was just this afternoon that I thought about him for the first time since I watched him get dismantled by Alex Jones and demolished by Ben Shapiro over gun control a couple of years ago. Today, he reentered my consciousness, comically, when I replied to a Tweet:

    As fate would have it, I read the first article that I ever knowingly read from him a few hours after the Tweet. I almost never read the Daily Mail, but a headline caught my attention.

    This is something that I’ve been pushing for since mid-2014. The Islamic State is not going away on their own. The “forces” in the Middle East are not equipped physically, emotionally, or ideologically to stop them. This leaves the United States, Russia, or Europe. The thought of Russia taking them out has its own complications and the situation with refugees in Europe (which are now there because of inaction regarding the Islamic State in the first place) means that the best option is for the United States to take the lead and act decisively.

    President Obama is hellbent on inaction. He really hopes that the problem will go away long enough for the next President to address so that he can save a bit of face to justify his unearned Nobel Peace Prize. Some of Morgan’s assertions are correct:

    • If the Islamic State is responsible for the attack, then they’ve escalated to a scale that demands immediate US intervention.
    • If there is no intervention, Russia is the only possible hope to stop them.
    • The United States is the ultimate prize for the Islamic State. We shouldn’t wait for another 9/11 or worse before we take them seriously.

    Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Russian Jet Crash

    Morgan is wrong about a few things as well. Let’s put aside his atrocious writing skills; clearly he’s a television personality more than a print journalist. Every sentence is its own paragraph, statements end in question marks, run on sentences are only overshadowed by sentence fragments… is this supposed to be a poem?

    I digress. The two problems with this piece that I disagree with completely are:

    • He’s discussing the Islamic State involvement as fact. Unless he has inside information from 10 Downing Street that the rest of the world doesn’t have, it is still only likely that they were involved. This is a nuance and not that big of a deal but worthy noting.
    • He’s conspicuously calling for action through outrage. Yes, we should be outraged by what the Islamic State does. We should have been outraged enough over a year ago to do something about them when they were smaller. Nevertheless, his outrage is suspicious.

    Why is it suspicious? The acute conspiracy theory alarms in me are ringing…

    Stomaching War is Easier with an Incident

    The United States is not the only country to have allegedly used false flag attacks in order to engage in a war that would have otherwise been considered unpopular, but over the last century we’ve definitely perfected it. This would be a harder one to prove than the Gulf of Tonkin incident because the powers that be are more sophisticated than they were in the past, but it’s not out of the question.

    Here’s the scenario. The first response to Islamic State claims that they took down the plane were skeptical across the board. They are well-funded and clearly have the desire to do such things, but hitherto they haven’t demonstrated the level of coordination and resources necessary to perpetrate the act.

    Maybe they weren’t before, but if it turns out that they did it this time, it’s very likely that they would have needed assistance. It smells like the type of assistance that can only come from the most covert and strategically sound of covert organizations, of which there are only really four. No need to name names.

    There are two possible reasons, not mutually exclusive, for this to be a play perpetrated by the Islamic State with assistance from outside forces. First, it would help to cast doubt in Russia itself among the citizens who have approved of President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Syria thus far. If strife and protests can be sparked based upon Russian civilians dying at the hands of the Islamic State, the resolute Russians might start second guessing their actions. Then again, they might start going in further. There are reason from a western perspective to find either scenario as a positive effect.

    The second scenario is escalation by US and British forces. The press is being steered towards guiding the people towards fear and anger. The fact that Morgan and the Daily Mail are diving in with hawkish opinions is conspicuous.

    We won’t know what manipulations are at play until they play all the way out. If this incident is isolated and no action is taken by the west, then scenario one is most likely true. If the west escalates action to take on the Islamic State or if another incident occurs over the next few months, then scenario two is the lead and scenario one is the fringe benefit. It took precision and cunning to attack a passenger jet. It took cleverness to make certain that jet took off from Egypt and that it was Russian.

    Most will dismiss this conspiracy theory as a crackpot idea, but when deciding whether the Islamic State pulled it off with or without assistance, the latter is more likely. Moreover, it makes sense considering exactly where we are in the geopolitical continuum.

    It’s impossible for us to know how to respond when we know we’re being manipulated. All we know for sure is that the Islamic State is an entity that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

  • feedwordpress 10:47:02 on 2015/10/31 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , President Obama, ,   

    The Necessity of Faith for the Country and Our Next President 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    The concepts of religious liberties which were the basis for the earliest foundations of our country are now at the center of American thought whether most Americans realize it or not. It creates a conflict that we all must understand in order to right the course of the country.

    Some of the things that I’m about to write may sound non-Christian. Those who know me are aware that my faith is at the heart of everything I do, making this “reality check” challenging to post. For the sake of this faith and the future of America, it’s important that we defend the freedoms that made this country strong. That means that the fight to protect our rights to properly practice Judeo-Christianity requires us to protect the rights of all religions, even those that are in conflict with our own.

    Technically, that would be all of them.

    Let’s first take a look at what brought us to where we are today.

    Abusing the Christian Majority

    If one were to look back at the recent history of the country with an honest lens, it’s easy to see that intolerance found its breeding grounds in the churches. It wasn’t too long ago when Christianity was the dominant driving force for many aspects of American society. One doesn’t have to be too old to remember a time when people still said “merry Christmas” instead of “happy holidays.”

    This gave us strength, but that strength was abused. It created a form of Christian elitism that left very little room for opposing thoughts. We existed in a comfortable setting for the faithful as well as the majority of people who were inwardly secular but who thrived in a Christian atmosphere. One can view the latter group as the “convenient Christians” who weren’t actually true believers or Bible-reading faithful but who used Christianity as an interpersonal vehicle and the church as a social setting.

    Many of the things that emerged from the country’s Christian elitism were on the wrong side of freedom. The Cross was used as a consolidator and even justification for hatred and violent opposition to anything outside of the group. Racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, and violent intolerance were often driven by people who claimed to hold their Christian faith in the highest regard. These people were hate-driven, not faith-driven, but they were clouded in their judgments in ways similar to today’s Westboro Baptist Church.

    The hateful use of faith as justification is just the tip of the spear. There has also been a Christian complacency due to our perception of strong numbers that made even the truly faithful look in the wrong directions. This helped to establish an atmosphere of passive intolerance. One did not have to burn crosses on lawns or attack homosexuals to perpetuate a subtle superiority that quashed outside thought. The attitude allowed other faiths to be practiced however they needed to be practiced as long as it wasn’t public. It was this double standard of freedom that built anger in non-Christians. Today, we’re seeing this anger manifest in militant politics.

    One can make a case that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) grew to the juggernaut it is today because of the passive intolerance practiced by Christians in the 20th century. In essence, we helped to empower our own worst enemy.

    Protecting Christian Freedoms Starts with Protecting All Religions

    It’s easy to understand how the anti-Christian and anti-religion facets of society were able to sneak into prominence. Too few saw it coming due to the complacency I described before. I’m guilty of this myself.

    The wake up call came as a result of the country’s gay marriage sentiment. In less than six years, over 20% of the country had shifted its perspective. Seeing this made me realize that we’re not seeing the subtle shift that has been brewing for decades. We’ve seen a veritable blitzkrieg of anti-Biblical mindsets infiltrating acceptable perceptions. America was hit by a tidal wave of liberalism.

    We can see this clearly in the political atmosphere at every level. The scary part is that this is not an event. It’s a trend. The momentum shifted dramatically in favor of those opposing freedoms and if it’s not halted and reversed very quickly, we will be lost as a country.

    There’s a silver lining to this trend: discernment. Now that the enemy’s gameplan has been unleashed, we can wake up from our ease-induced lull and realize that the forces of liberalism and anti-Biblical apostasy are at play. Now is the time to focus, to turn to the Bible for guidance in all that we do. That means learning, practicing, and spreading the Word of God. To do this, we have to acknowledge that all religions must be protected from a political perspective.

    Unless we were to become a true Christian nation, we cannot fight other religions politically. That’s to say that the protections that allow Christians to share the Gospel are only possible if we also defend the freedoms to share other perspectives. Until the day comes when the truth is revealed loud and clear to the whole world in the form of Christ’s reign, we have to work on an individual and institutional level rather than on a corporate level. The freedom to practice what Jesus Christ taught is the same freedom that allows others to practice what Muhammed or Christopher Hitchens taught.

    To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall, we may not believe in what others are preaching but we must defend to the death their right to preach it. Religious liberties are a hot topic for some in the current political world. As a country, we have to hold onto these freedoms for as long as they’re available. The machinations of the principalities and powers of this world are already at work to remove those freedoms. This fight, which not too long ago seemed to be impossible to conceive, is here in present day America.

    America as a Free Religious Zone

    The forces against us both politically and spiritually are trying to reverse the core of the country that is protected by the First Amendment. They are attempting to shift the country away from “freedom of religion” into a country of “freedom from religion.”

    Instead of America being a free religious zone, they want it to be a religion-free zone.

    Just as the play on words is a small but significant shift, so too would the shift in policies be represented by small shifts. What we once perceived as a protective wall for our faith can very easily be turned into a wall that keeps us from practicing our faith. Again, we saw this in the gay marriage ruling where a slight change in definition was enough to turn the entire concept upside down. The definition of marriage has been shifted from being between a man and a woman into being between two people. Everything else effectively remained the same, but changing a handful of words was enough to turn marriage away from being Biblical to being defined as anti-Biblical.

    Popular sentiment has changed. The “convenient Christians” that I mentioned before are the most powerful tools being used by the adversary. They are making it appear as if it’s possible to be a Christian and still espouse the secular beliefs of modern society. We see this in gay marriage, of course. We see it in the change of abortion from being the killing of human life to being the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. We see it in the notion that black lives matter rather than the truth that all lives matter.

    As a country, we’re starting to marginalize the importance of Biblical truths. It’s not being done by other religions. It’s being done within professed-Christianity itself. We aren’t losing the battle because of the attacks of non-Christians. We’re losing it because Christians are allowing their views to be liberalized based upon acceptable secular perceptions.

    Bringing Faith to the Forefront with Our Actions

    The only way for this destructive trend to turn around is to fight as individuals and unify as a group. The adversary is stronger than most ever imagined in the recent past.

    As individuals, it’s important to proceed properly. If you are a Christian, then it’s time to make your faith the cornerstone of all that you do. This is seemingly hard in a world with iPads, hundreds of television channels, and other outside influences changing our perceptions and guiding us to a secular mindset, but as long as we recognize these influences and allow the Holy Spirit to guide all of our actions, these negative forces can be easily overcome. I’ll discuss this further on a future post.

    Unifying as a group is something that needs to happen at every level. On the smaller levels such as within the family or community, we must fight the good fight without taking away from others’ rights. Those who believe that our faith is righteous should embrace an open forum. Not doing so was the mistake that so many of us made in the past that has brought us to where we are today. The forums are closing and it’s partially our fault for keeping them closed. Now that society has shifted mindset, we have to embrace the open forums in order to have venues to share the Gospel. This, too, is a much more complex idea than what can go into a few paragraphs, so I’ll discuss it in a future post as well.

    The unification that must happen immediately is getting behind the right Presidential candidate. Before President Obama proved me wrong, I believed that the personal doctrines of a politician could not dramatically affect the doctrines of the masses. We’ve seen that clearly happen in America over the last seven years.

    Now, with our eyes open, we must embrace a leader who will bring back a Biblical doctrine. No, this is not my call for a theocracy nor does it mean that I think policy in Washington DC can be driven by the Bible. It’s about the guidance of values within the country that starts at the top. President Obama did not have to pass laws in order to shift perspectives. He was able to change the worldview of the country in millions of people through his examples, his words, and the way he operated the country.

    I’m not going to use this article to endorse an individual, though it should be known that we have endorsed Ted Cruz for multiple reasons, not just his faith. What I will call on people to do is to look very closely at the faith of all of the candidates and use your understanding of their faith as one of the primary (if not the biggest) reasons to support them. Do not fall into the trap that most have done in the recent past by allowing a candidate’s faith to be secondary to their policy. The office of the President of the United States is not a religious position but the doctrine’s that guide the administration greatly influence the spiritual direction of the country. Again, we’ve seen this very clearly with the current President.

    Now is not the time to push our faith down in the hierarchy of our political decision-making. We will lose more than the battle for religious liberties. If we don’t unite very soon, we will lose the country itself.

    President Reagan Hand on Bible

  • feedwordpress 23:39:33 on 2015/10/24 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , President Obama, , White Hosue   

    After Obama, the Country Desperately Needs Christian Values in the White House 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    There was a time not too long ago when I wrongfully believed that strong Christian faith was important but not necessarily crucial for a Presidential candidate. It wasn’t that I felt faith was secondary. I simply though that the office of the President of the United States could not do much to supersede the faith and values of Americans. President Barack Obama proved me to be very wrong and it’s imperative that we correct that in the coming election.

    Unlike many conservatives, I do not believe that President Obama is a Muslim. He claims to be a Christian and some of us take that at face value. Just because he’s sympathetic to Muslims and against Israel does not mean that he prays to Allah. I find it much more likely that he’s lukewarm in his faith and not a conscientious follower of the Bible. He wants to be a uniting force between religions and follows a secular mindset. That concept is actually more dangerous than if her were actually a Muslim because it gives license to non-Biblical ideas. As a result, gay marriage is now accepted by American society and backed up by the Supreme Court.

    The last seven years have demonstrated how the non-Biblical ideals of a President can permeate throughout the population. When he was elected, over 60% of Americans were against gay marriage. Now, the polls are showing that the exact opposite is true with over 60% supporting gay marriage. This is the danger that I didn’t recognize before, the danger of a President’s belief system trickling down into society’s mindset.

    It isn’t just gay marriage. It’s also the fundamental shift in worldview that allows for concepts like racism, hatred towards American exceptionalism, and reliance on the government to solve our problems to creep into the thought processes of the common person. The Christian Conservative movement has been accused in the past of being at the forefront of hatred and many representatives of the movement proved to be wolves in sheep’s clothing pushing bigotry and hatred. However, the core of Christian Conservatism yields brotherly love, independent thought, and notions of personal responsibility that would fight the hatred we’re seeing in America today.

    In other words, true Christian Conservatism is exactly what the country needs if we’re going to fight bigotry from the extremes, whether it’s the police-hating Black Lives Matter movement or the everyone-hating Westboro Baptist Church. By seeking common ground in the precepts of the Bible to guide the country towards unity, we can finally be where we were always meant to be in leading the nations as a beacon of worldly light. That’s not to say that everyone in the country must be converted into evangelicals. It simply means that with faith-driven leaders fighting for the people, we’ll be able to overcome the challenges that have been created during the Obama administration.

    The coming election is a crossroad for the country that represents extreme divergence. The left is polarizing their base further to the left. The right must do the same. It’s time for the nation to choose whether we are going to be a liberal nation or a conservative one. Democrats have no true middle-leaning options with Jim Webb out of the picture. Republicans still have moderates like Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and John Kasich as possible nominees.

    A President cannot push the country towards the extremes in faith or secularism, but the office has the power to shift perceptions as we have seen with President Obama. The only way to correct this course is with a true conservative Christian in the White House.

    Ted Cruz Ben Carson

  • feedwordpress 10:45:35 on 2015/10/19 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , President Obama   

    Does President Obama Fear Hillary Clinton More than a Republican President? 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    No, he doesn’t, but it’s probably a closer call than you think. President Barack Obama would love for a Democrat to follow his Presidency to protect his legacy. However, he really hopes that it’s someone other than Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate who could hurt his place in history almost as much as most of the Republicans.

    Let’s call it the way that it really is. President Obama clearly never liked President Bill Clinton and even resented the notion that he needed his support to win reelection. The only major Democrat he likes even less is Hillary. Her appointment as Secretary of State was part of a deal to get her support in 2008 and more importantly the support of the powers behind her.

    That’s all history that has been covered. Looking to the future, President Obama sees Clinton as the ultimate Democratic threat to his legacy. Being the first black President is a major accomplishment but it would be overshadowed by the first female President. That’s not a huge deal but it’s in the back of his mind. That’s the petty stuff. Now let’s look at what’s real.

    As National Review pointed out, Joe Biden would be considered an extension of the Obama mandate while Clinton would be a “new new deal” who would try to overshadow Obama’s Presidency. She is against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (as is Bernie Sanders), already attacked the President’s stance on immigration, and nitpicked about Obamacare. She’s supported his gun control perspectives but would be the President who made them a reality on her own. Biden, on the other hand, would simply be continuing what he had already tried to do with the President.

    Most importantly, Clinton is incompetent and the President knows it. He’s seen first hand that she’s not capable of Presidential leadership. Moreover, she will likely blame the trouble’s she’s certain to have on a combination of the Republican Congress and her predecessor’s inability to bridge the gap. That’s right – Hillary Clinton will throw President Obama under the bus and he knows it.

    If she absolutely, positively has to be the nominee, he will support her but he won’t like it. Ideally, Biden will run, win, and continue his legacy for a single term. During that time, President Obama will find a suitable replacement to finalize what he started.

    Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Can't Be President

  • feedwordpress 21:35:48 on 2015/10/11 Permalink
    Tags: Ayatollah Khamenei, , , , , , , , President Obama   

    Iran is Proving the Nuclear Deal is a Complete Joke 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    When history looks back on this period of time, it will point to the United Nations’ nuclear deal with Iran as a defining moment that propelled the world into tragedy. US President Barack Obama is playing the role of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

    In both cases, the leaders of the free world negotiated deals with the greatest threats to world peace. For Chamberlain, it was an agreement with Nazi Germany. For Obama, it’s an agreement with Iran. Also in both cases, a world that was squeamish about conflict put faith in incompetent leadership over evidence that screamed of war and decrees by madmen who were bent on destruction. In Germany, Adolf Hitler would have his way. In Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei will have his way.

    President Obama declared what was required for “peace in our time” in his 2013 inaugural address. Few caught the words other than a handful of conservative journalists.

    The irony is that it was an unintended allusion to Chamberlain’s famous quote. Most misquote Chamberlain, who actually said, “peace for our time.” Nevertheless, the gravity of the words were felt and the agreements with maniacal leaders bent on destruction were felt before and will likely be felt again.

    This isn’t just an article to restate what others have already said. It’s inspired by things that have happened just this week that individually don’t seem like a big deal but when viewed as a trend it’s clear that we’re heading towards dangerous times now that the leader of Iran is emboldened by… something. Perhaps he’s simply happy that Russia is finally in the mix in Syria. Maybe he’s just doing what he has done in the past by taking harsh actions himself and allowing his underlings to clean up the mess in the court of worldwide public opinion. Perhaps he’s closer to having nuclear weapons than we ever knew and the UN negotiations bought him the time he needed.

    Regardless of what has prompted his sudden renewal of bold and damaging actions, it’s clear that they are escalating. Here are some of the things that the country has been doing this week alone.

    It’s with this final piece of news that the tragedy of this agreement comes to light. The United States has long held a stance that hostages are not a part of negotiations with enemies because doing so would put other Americans at risk. If an enemy force wants a stronger hand in negotiations, they simply need to kidnap Americans as negotiating tools. This policy makes sense.

    There are two problems with this. First, the men who are being wrongfully held by Iran were not kidnapped or captured to be pawn pieces. They represent a fundamental policy within the Iranian government to always assume deceit on the part of Americans or other nationals in their lands. If one does their research, they will find that these men are not spies. They are not terrorists. They are pastors, journalists… everyday people who weren’t attempting to usurp the government in Iran.

    The fact that they are being held for years despite false evidence and idiotic claims is a demonstration that this country will never honor the nuclear deal. They operate through lies and positioning of their own set of values that is contrary to everything the nuclear deal is supposed to represent. Three things should have been absolute portions of the agreement:

    1. Unconditional release of Americans and other nationals who are being wrongly held based upon the judgement of a United Nations investigation. If Iran is not going to obey the United Nations’ human rights laws, they are demonstrating that they will not honor the nuclear deal.
    2. Acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. Their unwillingness to acknowledge Israel is another crystal clear sign that they do not want peace. They are building nuclear weapons specifically to shift the balance of power so they have the might to win against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that are opposed to them. The fact that they consider Israel (and the United States) to be their mortal enemies makes this deal untenable.
    3. Acknowledgement that they were building nuclear weapons in the first place. At this point, they continue to lie about the very nature of their nuclear program. Making a deal based on falsehoods by the primary player is ludicrous. If they won’t admit they were pursuing the bomb, what makes us believe they will admit to continuing to pursue the bomb?

    The second problem with not negotiating for the release of the wrongly imprisoned is that Bowe Bergdahl clearly demonstrated that this policy is not real. We negotiated for a traitor. That makes the policy claims by the White House an insult to the lives that they are allowing to be destroyed by the Ayatollah’s regime.

    Ayatollah Khamenei and Adolf Hitler

    As the politics behind the Iran deal continue to get uglier, at what point will people realize that the Ayatollah has no intentions of honoring it? Peace requires strength to be real. Obama is demonstrating the weakness of Chamberlain while the Ayatollah is demonstrating the deceptiveness of Hitler.

    The NY Post is correct:

  • feedwordpress 20:15:22 on 2015/10/05 Permalink
    Tags: Asia, Australia, , , , , , President Obama, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership   

    Despite Republican Support, We’re Leaning Away from TPP 

    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    When a deal as secretive and important as the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes around, everyone wants to chime in on its merits and shortcomings. At this stage, opinions based on speculation and principle are invalid. We don’t know what we don’t know.

    Normally, clear lines are drawn to make it easier to pick a side based upon party affiliation, but with the Democratic President and the Republican Congress as the primary supporters, the waters are much murkier than normal. Throw in that the harshest opposition is coming from the far right and far left and suddenly we’re in a political quagmire.

    Let’s break down what we know about the deal for the sake of speculation. It’s going to happen anyway. Why not throw in another invalid opinion just to keep with the trends.

    1. Bernie Sanders Hates It Because of Unions: There is an ever-so-slight chance that provisions within the deal will actually strengthen unions, but the degree of strengthening will shift support and opposition proportionately. If the advantages to unions outweigh the risks of free trade, then the left may jump on board but the right may abandon. If the advantages are minimal, the right may accept it while the left denounces it.
    2. Ted Cruz Hates it Because of Lies and Weakness: Senator Cruz supported fast track and the TPP because it was supposed to enhance our positioning against China. Then, he reversed his support because it opens doors to immigration (by a couple of small loopholes, but doors nonetheless) but more importantly because it was put together through backroom deals and with limited exposure to the public. This almost always adds the smell of rats to any exchange and Senator Cruz can’t stand the smell of a rat.
    3. The Middle Loves it Because it’s Progress: Free trade is a dirty word on the edges but it’s a rallying cry for advancement in the moderate left and right circles. This is where special interest groups will chime in and sway their politicians in their direction, particularly the pharmaceutical industry. If it reduces profit potentials too much by adopting more of an Australian perspective for drug companies than an American view, we could see support erode very quickly in the middle. Otherwise, they’re the target audience for President Obama’s upcoming batch of sales pitches on the deal.
    4. President Obama Loves it Because it Looks Good on His Legacy: The President has affected social change and has a few domestic economic wins. His foreign relations record is abysmal and his foreign finance record is almost as bad. This will kill two birds with one stone by giving him a legacy item for future Wikipedia edits.
    5. Most Americans Hate it Because Some Americans Hate It: The general population is opposed to the deal because of two reasons. First, there are those who are opposed to the scandalous secrecy that has shrouded the deal and made it seem like a play by the New World Order. These opponents have been outspoken and have therefore brought other Americans to dislike it. The campaigns against TPP have been as ferocious as campaigns against SOPA/PIPA, another deal that most Americans didn’t understand but hated because of the hatred from the outspoken.

    Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP

    The safe stance on this one is to oppose and that’s what the President fears the most. The onus is on his administration to convince Congress that it needs to get through. To do this, he’ll have to work on both the front and back ends. On the front end, he’ll need to sell it to the American people, something that would have been much easier a couple of years ago but that may be more difficult today. On the back end, he’ll have to make deals with Democrats in Congress in the form of campaign re-election support promises. Again, this was a more powerful tool in the past since nobody knows what his legacy will look like by 2018.

    Our view, which is as uneducated as all others until the details are fully released, is that our need to keep jobs stateside supersedes our need to keep China in check. If their economy was thriving, we might feel differently, but in the short term the deal empowers the wrong people while not doing much to prop up American trade interests. Of course, we reserve the right of reversal once details are released.

compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help