Responding to a comment

I would just like to take a little time to respond to a comment responding to my post “Throwing a temper tantrum.”

The commenter said she was glad that I approved of Obama picking Rick Warren for his inauguration invocation. Well, I am glad that she approves, but she approves for just the opposite reason which I approved.

Unlike her, I don’t think Obama is trying to “let everyone have a presence at the political table.” I think he will do just the opposite. I am not sure why he chose Warren, but who knows with Obama.

Also unlike the commenter, I don’t think that people (well a lot of people) have felt let down by the political system and “really hated the religious aspects of the Bush administration.” Bush did a great job with the religious aspects of the political system. He stood up for his religious beliefs, but also did it in a way that is just as good as Obama will do.

When Obama becomes president, he is going to back his religious beliefs and other beliefs he supports such as gay marriage, and this will also make a majority of people feel left out just like the commentator said people feel now.

So, while I think Obama finally made a good choice, I think it will be his one and only. I know, pessimistic, right? Well, this is what I believe.

And Obama will close down dialog, unlike the beliefs of the commentator, because you and I both know that once he gets in office, he will support gay marriage wholly and not give a second thought to those of us who believe in traditional marriage.

Well, I thought I would just respond and refute comments made by Jennifer to my earlier post because I found it important to do.

Are you nuts?

The story that has been covering news stations is Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, tried to sell Obama’s senate seat.

I have no clue what the governor was thinking, but obviously he wasn’t. I wonder what was going through his head. He tries to sell a senate seat of the next president. Does he not think others will be watching him and watching who will be taking the seat?

In a story on foxnews.com, recordings have been reported powerful evidence to send the governor to jail according to prosecutors.

But he has also done more than that. He tried to get Chicago Tribune editorial writers fired because they called for his impeachment. He tried to use his power to do this.

All I have to say to this, is Blagojevich obviously wasn’t thinking. He should have known that he would get caught, especially trying to do something as crazy as that.

The website with the full Fox News story on this event is
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec11/0,4670,IllinoisGovernorCharges,00.html

Just for kicks

Just for the heck of it, and to back up my last couple of posts when I mentioned that Obama is not making the best decision when appointing his previous (and still are) political enemies, I decided to find some of the comments and remarks that the democrats said to one another during debates.

These comments are between and about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden from Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden.

One that I find is a good one to start off with is said by Joe Biden, the current president-elects’ vice president, Joe Biden in an interview by a reporter for Newsweek magazine. The question asked was is Obama ready to president. Biden said that Senator Obama is “not yet ready” to be president. “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training,” Biden said.

Hillary Clinton talking about Barach Obama: “Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you run a campaign consistent with your messages in public,” Clinton said.

Obama in Oct. 30 Democratic Debate: “It does not mean, I think, changing positions whenever it’s politically convenient. And Senator Clinton, in her campaign, I think has been for NAFTA previously. Now she’s against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago, and then most recently has taken a different position.

She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy.

I don’t think that it — now, that may be politically savvy, but I don’t think that it offers the clear contrast that we need. I think what we need right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the country. That’s how I’m trying to run my campaign. That’s how I will be as president.”

These are just some of the many comments that some of Obama’s new “helpers” have said about him and that he has said about them.

To read more transcripts on democratic debates, follow this link.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18296908/

Throwing a temper tantrum

I finally think Obama has made a good decision. On Thursday, Obama announced that at his inauguration, pastor Rick Warren, would be present to give the invocation.

But some liberals are disagreeing… and throwing a tantrum at the same time.

Warren has been in support of California’s Proposition 8 that bans gay marriage and homosexuals and other liberals are upset. They are “infuriated” that Obama, a supporter of homosexual marriage, would even think of having a pastor who supports traditional marriage, at his inauguration.

I am glad Obama is doing this because it is only fair. If Obama had chosen a homosexual pastor to give the invocation, no one in America would dare say anything because it would be considered a hate crime. Here is just another example of one side getting away with something and the other not being able to. So, my question, what is the difference between Rick Warren speaking or a homosexual pastor. Nothing, except that Obama’s supporters are not very happy about it and I finally think Obama has done something right.

I am glad that Obama has finally done something I agree with. I don’t know how often I will be able to say this, so I guess I better save this post.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/18/obamas-rick-warren-inauguration-pick-sparks-gay-fury/

Going to his head

With a sign on his podium that reads “Office of the President Elect,” I would have to say that yes, Obama’s office has definitely gone to his head. 

And, yes, it is a major victory for Obama to be the next president of the U.S., but really, come on.  Does he really need this sign?  I think we all know who Obama will be in a little over a month.  Do we need that constant reminder?  No.  Not really. 

 

And, why is it that the media hasn’t mentioned anything about this sign that has so gracefully been displayed on every podium Obama has spoken behind?  I would have to say that this is because, as I already have mentioned, most media sources are liberal. 

 

I think it would be interesting to know that if McCain were the president-elect right now and he would have the same sign on his podium, what would the media be saying right now?  I bet they would be having a field day with this one.

 

I also find it interesting that the media has not said much (except positive comments) on Obama’s reaching out to people who were just 6 months ago, his enemies. These would include Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden.  (After all, they were all throwing snide comments and bashing each other less than 7 months ago.) 

 

As Ann Coulter mentioned in her column, she sure doesn’t remember the media going crazy when President Bush reached out to his rivals, one being Sen. Ted Kennedy.

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=284

 

I would have to blame this on media bias.  I am sure that there are more of me out there who would agree with my comments, but I wouldn’t know, due to the liberal media usually only displaying one side of the story.  This one side is usually everything pro-Obama. 

Smart move?

 

As soon as Obama knew he was the winner of the presidential race, it did not take him much time to begin announcing who would be following him into the White House in January.  Some of these people include Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, Bill Richardson as his Commerce Secretary, and of course Joe Biden as his  Vice President. 

 

I don’t know about anybody else, but I find this kind of strange.  All three of these people ran against Obama to become the presidential nominee for the Democratic party.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I would want my opponents, who were running for my same position,  helping me run a country.  Can anyone say trouble or maybe even tension? 

 

I also noticed that two people were part of the Clinton Administration: one Bill Clinton’s wife and the other (Richardson) was Clinton’s Ambassador to the United Nations and Energy Secretary. 

 

What this shows me is that one, Obama is asking for trouble and two, we will soon be getting a repeat of the Clinton administration. 

 

I like how people said they were not voting for McCain because they were afraid it would be a repeat of the Bush administration, but these same people didn’t stop from voting for Obama, even though it appears his time in office will be a repeat of the Clinton Administration. 

 

I just found this quite odd and kind of humorous.  The same people who were vying for Obama’s current job will now be helping him be successful in his new  role.  Hmm.  I wonder how well that will turn out?  I am thinking it won’t be pretty. 

 

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/12/05/obama-tries-the-parliamentary-system/#more-506

 

 

Can you be a Christian and hold political views? Part II

 

God does not only says what we as Christians should think about abortion and gay marriage but also the war and helping those in need.  Here are Bible verses that correspond with both issues. 

 

War:

 

“The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.”

Exodus 15:3, KJV

 

“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall

overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings:

and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and

faithful.”

Revelation 17:14, KJV

 

 

Helping those in need:

Luke 1:52-53 “He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.

He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.”

 

Luke 6:20-21 “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours in the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.”

 

Deuteronomy 15:7 “If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.”

 

Proverbs 31:8 “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

 

http://www.worldvision.org/about_us.nsf/child/g8_bibleverses?Open

 

The Bible tells us what we should do about several issues.  I think that people who say they are Christians, who believe contrary to what is stated in the Bible on issues, just don’t want to see the truth.  If people want to know what God thinks about any issue, all they need to do is go back to the Bible and pray.  As I have shown through these Bible verses, God states clearly his view on the major issues in America right now, people just need to read His word to see it. 

Can you be a Christian and hold political views?

 

Can you be a Christian and still align yourself with a political party?

 

Yes, there are some politicians and some parts of politics that are not honest, but this shouldn’t stop people from holding a political party, especially if you are a Christian.  Being a Christian is even more of a reason to hold political views.

 

Why, you may ask?  Because as a Christian, we should be even more in support of political views.  We are to represent the life of Jesus in every area of our lives and politics is one of them.  We need especially represent the life of Jesus in politics because it is known for its corruption and dishonesty and several other not-so good qualities. 

 

The Bible says several things about issues that are in today’s political conversations. 

 

Abortion:

Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother’s breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).”

 

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).

 

The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done? (Proverbs 24:11-12).

 

http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-cultureandsocietyinfluences/abortionoflifeinthewomb-sinandgodsforgiveness.asp

 

Gay-marriage:

“You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination.”  (Leviticus 18:22)

  

http://www.bible-knowledge.com/same-sex-marriage.html

 

These are just some of the many Bible verses that say what Christians should do in the way of politics.

 

If you are ever concerned about what the Bible and God says about a certain issues and political views, always go back to the Bible and pray.  God will always provide the answers for you. 

 

Look for my next post to see what the Bible says about war and helping those in need. 

 

Left or Right?

 

Why are the two major parties Republican and Democrat when most Americans are seem to be in the center? 

 This is a great question to ask considering it is true of most Americans.  I believe, though, the reason why there are only two main political parties is because there have always been two main parties throughout most of history.  When there has been more than two, such as today (independent party, green party, etc) the other parties are not as successful and it just further divides voters.  I also believe that the two major political parties in America right now get the most publicity and therefore are the most known about and most popular.  People don’t want to support a party they know little about and unless they go out and research themselves, they won’t know much about the other political parties.  And since it is very unlikely that a majority of Americans will go out searching for information themselves, not provided by the media, there are only two major political parties. 

The two main political parties support quite different views on some issues. These issues are abortion, gay-marriage, the war in Iraq, and many more. These parties holding quite different views leads to quite a division between Republican and Democrat and then also a division between Americans.  There is a large number of Americans who hold certain, unmovable views on some of these issues, but there are also those who might hold a certain view on one issue that aligns to one political party and then on another issue, hold the view that aligns to the other party.

An example of this is me. I am pro-life, pro traditional marriage, and support the war in Iraq.  These views and beliefs line up with the Republican party. On the other hand though, I am also a supporter of programs for the  low-income which aligns more with the Democratic party.  Even though I do consider myself a Republican, not all things that the Republican party supports align with my views. 

And I am sure there is more than just me out there who has this problem.  I do align myself with Republicans because the beliefs that I hold and support most strongly align with that party.  But, wouldn’t it be nice to have a party that is in the middle of the two?  That, for me anyway, is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, supports the war in Iraq and supports programs for the low-income.  (Even though the Republicans do support programs for the low-income, the Democrats seem to be even more in support of it.)

Here is a link to a quiz to see where you are on the political spectrum.  Kind of a crazy quiz, as you will soon see,  but fun to read and take and it got me right!  Take it and let me know what it said you are! 

 

 

http://quiz.myyearbook.com/myspace//5261/What_is_your_political_orientation.html

Passing the bucket

 

I have a feeling that when Obama takes office, he will be faced with some major crises.  As I wrote in the post Age is another form of discrimination, Obama’s vice president even said that everyone needs to expect that America will be tested after Obama becomes president.  This basically states that Biden expects an attack on America in the near future. 

 

I can already guess that when something does happen in America after Obama takes office, most will want to go ahead and blame President Bush for what happened.  They will say it is his fault and that he should be held responsible.  And maybe this will be true, but looking back 7 years to September 11, 2001, I think making this claim would be unfair.

 

I believe that if America does get attacked it will be because of Obama, and  Bush shouldn’t be to blamed.  Bush, instead of Bill Clinton was  blamed for the 9/11 attacks, even though it occurred in Bush’s first term in office, who had only been in office for 8 months before the attack.  For those who did the blaming, they must not have realized that Clinton was in office for eight years before the attack.  The reason I am bringing this up is because a president who had been in office for the past eight years should have prevented an attack like 9/11 from even occurring. 

 

How can a president who has only been in office eight months be to blame when the president who held office for eight years didn’t do anything to prevent it?  Some might argue that Clinton did not know the attack on America was coming but I beg to differ. 

 

Clinton had the opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden, but instead, he decided to let him go.  He decided not bother capturing one of the worlds worst terrorist, who we are even today, still after.  He also had several reports of possible attacks on America and did nothing about them. 

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/746wewfh.asp?pg=1

 

So why did I bring 9/11 up?  The reason being is because even though Bush was a recently elected president, people had no problem blaming him for the attack, instead of two-term President Clinton.  So what I am saying is that when Obama is a recently elected president, and something major happens, no one can go blaming Bush.  Plus, his own vice president said that he (Obama)  would be tested.  This for sure couldn’t be  blamed on Bush.  So my conclusion is that if Clinton isn’t to be held responsible for 9/11, then Bush shouldn’t be held responsible for anything that happens in Obama’s term.  It’s only fair.