Tuesday, June 28, 2011

I spent a little bit of my time listening to a speech given in Iowa today by President Obama. He actually said that he believes that our country should live within its means. I snorted. I actually wondered for just an instant, "Does he really believe what he's saying?" This is a man whose policy it has actually been to spend the country out of a financial breakdown---to print up money and dole it out in the hopes that spending it will encourage the building of revenue through job creation. As if. There are only three possible answers to the question of whether or not he really believes his own statement. The first possible answer is that he actually believes something like this when he says it. The second is that he knows he's misrepresenting what he believes because to do so serves an agenda of some kind. The third possible answer is that he's deluded. A deluded person despite all evidence to the contrary, will believe something untrue because they have surrendered their mind to it.

I don't think President Obama is delusional. I think that he's serving an agenda that he deeply believes in. I think too, that he keeps that agenda to himself. I know for a fact that John P. Coale, a litigater and former campaigner for both of the Clintons stopped his support for the Obama campaign because he said that Mr. Obama is not the man that he purports himself to be. I don't find that difficult to believe. My pastor said that people shouldn't too be surprised by what President Obama has done generally in office, because he has for the most part done what he promised to do, as sad as that is.

A man I know told me once that when Bill Clinton was elected president that he and his wife hugged each other in their living room and wept together because they believed that America had tragically embraced and elected a president with an outwardly immoral agenda. He openly affirmed the practice of abortion and vowed to advance the causes of homosexual activists in the United States, promising to do away with any prohibition of gays in the military and as well to seek equal (special) rights for gays at large.

I've never asked how his wife and he reacted when President Obama was elected. I'm sure they were just as disappointed as I was. As a nation, his supporters and even those of us most opposed to his election to the office seemed to know it was coming. He had so much support from the left. The alarming thing is though, that he had so much support from conservatives who absolutely should have known better. Sure, there were the Emergent pastors who proclaimed support for him. That was no surprise. But there were also more conservative pastors and Christian writers who supported him. Those who did sounded like Robert Schuller at his rationalizing best. I hope now, that are aware of their mistake.

President Obama declared that he, like former President Clinton would support gay causes and support the rights of women to take the innocent lives of the unborn. He's only made good on those promises. Since being in office, he's said that he hopes that one day homosexual marriages would be accepted as every bit as normal and noble as heterosexual marriage. So, he's hoping for something very wrong and sinful to be seen as normal. In this part at least, he's deluded himself. Oh I'm sure that one day it will be seen as noble and acceptable by the world, but in that he believes it is not a sin, he has deluded himself, and he's seeking to deceive others in this way. Last February, he ordered the Justice Department to quit defending the Defense of Marriage Act in the nation's courtrooms. He said that he believed the law to be unconstitutional. I guess he thinks that his powers supercede those of the Supreme Court? I guess he doesn't like our nation's system of checks and balances? He swore to not only protect the United States Constitution, but to enforce the laws of this land. Evidently he has decided that he personally will determine whether or not laws are contitutional and not the Supreme Court. Should we keep the Supreme Court? If he's going to make such arbitrary decisions, what do we really need them for?

This is a man who says that he believes that Jesus Christ is his Savior. That's great, but at the same time he acts like a man wants very little to do with God, or wants God to have very little to do with this nation. Just last December, he was taken to task by fifty members of Congress for mistating our national motto last November at a university speech in Jakarta, Indonesia. He said our motto was E pluribus unum (out of many, one). The fact of the matter is that our national motto for over fifty years has been "In God We Trust". Those same fifty members also took the opportunity to point out to our President that every time he quotes a certain part of our Declaration of Independence, he does so incorrectly. I think he does this on purpose. Why? Because the part he always gets wrong is the part where it says that our Creator is supposed to be mentioned. He leaves it out. He says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and that they have certain unalienable rights..." He leaves out that they are "endowed by their Creator." Why? I guess he's either a very principled man who forgets those particular words every time, or he's a very unprincipled man who just can't bring himself to acknowledge God in even the generic way that He is in our nation's recorded documents.

On June 19th, NBC deleted the words, "under God" from the pledge of alegiance during their broadcast of the U.S. Open Golf Tournement. After a very immediate and negative audience response, they decided to make an apology for doing so. I wonder, would they have done this if we had a different leader in office, a leader who led by a different example?

Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

It's a shame that Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" reference to the Danbury Baptist Association has been so removed from its context and misapplied elsewhere. There's a type of ignorance involved here that is self-imposed, and people have been knee-jerking on this point for many decades now and it's getting worse. Our constitution says nothing whatsoever about separating church and state. What it says it this: we have freedom of religion and there shall not be a state-run church. That's pretty much it. There's no reason not to mention God at state-sponsored events. There's no reason we have to avoid saying prayers to God either. Praying God doesn't establish a church. Saying that we are one nation under God doesn't establish a church either. Referencing "our Creator" in the document that says there can't be a state-run church.....I don't think that one just got by the writers, or the signers.

No comments: