The Obama Administration Chews the Fat
By Matt Purple on 5.26.10 @ 6:07AM
When the president announced that Michelle Obama would be heading up an anti-obesity task force last summer, most of us shrugged. Most presidents like to send their wives off on a health-related mission of some sort. Laura Bush worked closely with heart disease and breast cancer charities. Nancy Reagan lectured children on the dangers of drugs. Hillary Clinton tried to burn down the entire American health care system.
In retrospect, we probably should have been a little more concerned. In October, Mrs. Obama confessed that, as recently as two years ago, Sasha's and Malia's meals had been chock full of fast food and pizza. When the Obama family pediatrician told Michelle that this wasn't doing her daughters' health any favors, the First Lady's jaw hit the table. "I was shocked," she said.
The same woman who was floored by the news that Wendy's Baconators are unhealthy was assigned to spearhead the government's anti-obesity policies. That probably should have set off a few alarm bells.
Read the rest of the article here.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Newt is not the answer in 2012
Joseph Farar
WorldNetDaily
Posted: May 24, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
Newt Gingrich is out there campaigning for the presidency in 2012 with a new book, "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine."
I won't tell you I read the book.
I don't feel I need to do so after reviewing Gingrich's political career through the 1990s.
It's not that Gingrich isn't smart. He is.
Gingrich had his moment. He did an amazing job in 1994 leading the "Republican Revolution" and becoming speaker of the House.
But Gingrich lost his way during the Clinton years. He became part of the problem. Do I really need to remind Americans he resigned the speakership in moral disgrace?
I was among the first to call for his resignation then. I sure don't think he's the right man to succeed Obama when we need a radical approach to reversing unconstitutional initiatives and policies.
Gingrich was a revolutionary until he got power. Then he became the politician, again. Ask most members of the freshman class of 1994 who betrayed the "Republican Revolution" and they will tell you Gingrich did.
He sold out his principles. He accommodated. He appeased. He fought harder to get in the front of Air Force One to chat with the president than he did to subvert that president's agenda.
Now we're to believe Newt is the fiery revolutionary, once again.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
Everything Gingrich says about Barack Obama's administration is true. But he's really a Johnny-come-lately to the party.
For instance, his battle plan calls for stopping the energy tax. That would be cap and trade – Obama's answer to the phantom problem of climate change.
But, not long ago, Gingrich was helping Nancy Pelosi and others sell climate change to the American people. In case you forgot, I invite you to watch the happy couple in the TV commercial on this subject.
Do you really expect President Gingrich will fight to stop cap and trade after serving as an advocate of the phony climate-change scenario?
Lately I've heard him more than once tell the American people the new speaker of the House is going to be John Boehner. Personally, I think the new class of freshman House Republicans might have a better idea about that. I think they might want new leadership in both the House and Senate.
Why?
Because that's what we need.
The Republican Party is moribund.
It's going to fare extremely well in 2010, but not because of any leadership exerted by the party. It will be the result of a grass-roots rebellion against the party in power.
If the Republicans were in the majority in the House and Senate, it would be they who would be voted out in droves in November. The people don't like the direction of the country under Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid. But they are not enamored of the Republican opposition under Boehner and Mitch McConnell, either.
America needs real change today, and that does not mean looking backward for yesterday's failed leadership.
I believe we have better candidates who may not be as well known as Gingrich.
It's time to start talking about them.
I've given you an example of one ticket I like. It is certainly not the only one. But I wanted to illustrate that there are good people available in 2012.
It's just that none of them are named Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
WorldNetDaily
Posted: May 24, 2010
1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
Newt Gingrich is out there campaigning for the presidency in 2012 with a new book, "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine."
I won't tell you I read the book.
I don't feel I need to do so after reviewing Gingrich's political career through the 1990s.
It's not that Gingrich isn't smart. He is.
Gingrich had his moment. He did an amazing job in 1994 leading the "Republican Revolution" and becoming speaker of the House.
But Gingrich lost his way during the Clinton years. He became part of the problem. Do I really need to remind Americans he resigned the speakership in moral disgrace?
I was among the first to call for his resignation then. I sure don't think he's the right man to succeed Obama when we need a radical approach to reversing unconstitutional initiatives and policies.
Gingrich was a revolutionary until he got power. Then he became the politician, again. Ask most members of the freshman class of 1994 who betrayed the "Republican Revolution" and they will tell you Gingrich did.
He sold out his principles. He accommodated. He appeased. He fought harder to get in the front of Air Force One to chat with the president than he did to subvert that president's agenda.
Now we're to believe Newt is the fiery revolutionary, once again.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
Everything Gingrich says about Barack Obama's administration is true. But he's really a Johnny-come-lately to the party.
For instance, his battle plan calls for stopping the energy tax. That would be cap and trade – Obama's answer to the phantom problem of climate change.
But, not long ago, Gingrich was helping Nancy Pelosi and others sell climate change to the American people. In case you forgot, I invite you to watch the happy couple in the TV commercial on this subject.
Do you really expect President Gingrich will fight to stop cap and trade after serving as an advocate of the phony climate-change scenario?
Lately I've heard him more than once tell the American people the new speaker of the House is going to be John Boehner. Personally, I think the new class of freshman House Republicans might have a better idea about that. I think they might want new leadership in both the House and Senate.
Why?
Because that's what we need.
The Republican Party is moribund.
It's going to fare extremely well in 2010, but not because of any leadership exerted by the party. It will be the result of a grass-roots rebellion against the party in power.
If the Republicans were in the majority in the House and Senate, it would be they who would be voted out in droves in November. The people don't like the direction of the country under Obama, Pelosi and Harry Reid. But they are not enamored of the Republican opposition under Boehner and Mitch McConnell, either.
America needs real change today, and that does not mean looking backward for yesterday's failed leadership.
I believe we have better candidates who may not be as well known as Gingrich.
It's time to start talking about them.
I've given you an example of one ticket I like. It is certainly not the only one. But I wanted to illustrate that there are good people available in 2012.
It's just that none of them are named Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Sorry, Mr. President: Socialism's not in the Bible
John Aman - Guest Columnist - 5/22/2010 5:00:00 AM
Onenewsnow.com
Having placed 50 percent of America's economy under government control, the Obama administration is now angling for a tighter grip on the financial sector.
The operative word is "fairness," which is shorthand for Obama's famous campaign promise to "spread the wealth around."
When critics said that this remark to "Joe the Plumber" displayed Obama's socialist leanings, Obama justified it by citing Scripture:
"My Bible tells me there is nothing wrong with helping other people," said then-Sen. Obama. "That we want to treat others like we want to be treated. That I am my brother's keeper, and I am my sister's keeper. I believe that."
But Obama, who once dismissed the Bible's relevance to politics, saying, "People haven't been reading their Bibles lately," may need to go reread his Engels. Co-author with Karl Marx of The Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels knew better than Obama about collectivism's clash with Christianity, stating, "...if some few passages of the Bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it ...."
Despite Engels and Marx (who dismissed religion as the "opium of the people"), Obama and many others still manage to see socialism in the Bible. They point to the early church which, at first glance, seems like a model socialist community. The New Testament reports that these first believers "had all things in common" (Acts 4:32) and "all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need" (Acts 4:34-35).
But unlike socialism, the sharing was voluntary, not coerced, and the money was given not to the state, but the church. As Southern Baptist leader Richard Land puts it on the new Coral Ridge Ministries documentary, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger, "It's one thing for you to give out of compassion to someone who's less fortunate. It's an entirely different thing for the government to confiscate your property and give it to someone else." (Part 2 of the documentary airs Sunday, May 23, nationwide on The Coral Ridge Hour.)
While the Bible asserts property rights and the rights of inheritance, socialism assaults them. Marx and Engels put the "abolition of property" first in a ten-step program for implementing communism. That's not exactly a Christian thing to do. The eighth commandment, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15) applies every bit as much to the men and women who hold the reins of political power as it does to everyone else.
So does the 10th commandment, "You shall not covet" (Exodus 20:17). Coveting, or envy, is a powerful driver of socialism, which is in a perpetual snit that some people have more than others. So when President Obama castigates "Fats Cats" on Wall Street, decries "economic inequality," and warns, as he did in his 2009 budget statement that a "disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," he stokes a destructive impulse that is condemned by Scripture.
Socialism also runs afoul of the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3). Socialist governments seek to play God — to take His place as the ultimate sovereign. Consider the veneration that Russians once gave to the embalmed remains of Lenin and Stalin, the Nazi-prescribed prayer to Hitler ("Thy Reich [kingdom] comes, thy will alone is law upon the earth"), and the personality cult surrounding North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong-il.
The sixth commandment, "You shall not murder," is also widely ignored by Marxist regimes. Marx and Engels proclaimed that their aims could be "attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Their disciples, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist henchmen, killed 100-million people, a "tragedy of planetary dimensions," as the French publisher of The Black Book of Communism put it.
Barack Obama may say that the Bible tells him to be his brother's keeper (his youngest half-brother reportedly lived in a shack in Kenya on $1 a day at the time he said this), but he ought to go back and reread what God's Word actually says. Engels was right. Socialism has nothing in common with Scripture.
John Aman - Guest Columnist - 5/22/2010 5:00:00 AM
Onenewsnow.com
Having placed 50 percent of America's economy under government control, the Obama administration is now angling for a tighter grip on the financial sector.
The operative word is "fairness," which is shorthand for Obama's famous campaign promise to "spread the wealth around."
When critics said that this remark to "Joe the Plumber" displayed Obama's socialist leanings, Obama justified it by citing Scripture:
"My Bible tells me there is nothing wrong with helping other people," said then-Sen. Obama. "That we want to treat others like we want to be treated. That I am my brother's keeper, and I am my sister's keeper. I believe that."
But Obama, who once dismissed the Bible's relevance to politics, saying, "People haven't been reading their Bibles lately," may need to go reread his Engels. Co-author with Karl Marx of The Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels knew better than Obama about collectivism's clash with Christianity, stating, "...if some few passages of the Bible may be favourable to Communism, the general spirit of its doctrines is, nevertheless, totally opposed to it ...."
Despite Engels and Marx (who dismissed religion as the "opium of the people"), Obama and many others still manage to see socialism in the Bible. They point to the early church which, at first glance, seems like a model socialist community. The New Testament reports that these first believers "had all things in common" (Acts 4:32) and "all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need" (Acts 4:34-35).
But unlike socialism, the sharing was voluntary, not coerced, and the money was given not to the state, but the church. As Southern Baptist leader Richard Land puts it on the new Coral Ridge Ministries documentary, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger, "It's one thing for you to give out of compassion to someone who's less fortunate. It's an entirely different thing for the government to confiscate your property and give it to someone else." (Part 2 of the documentary airs Sunday, May 23, nationwide on The Coral Ridge Hour.)
While the Bible asserts property rights and the rights of inheritance, socialism assaults them. Marx and Engels put the "abolition of property" first in a ten-step program for implementing communism. That's not exactly a Christian thing to do. The eighth commandment, "You shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15) applies every bit as much to the men and women who hold the reins of political power as it does to everyone else.
So does the 10th commandment, "You shall not covet" (Exodus 20:17). Coveting, or envy, is a powerful driver of socialism, which is in a perpetual snit that some people have more than others. So when President Obama castigates "Fats Cats" on Wall Street, decries "economic inequality," and warns, as he did in his 2009 budget statement that a "disproportionate share of the nation's wealth has been accumulated by the very wealthy," he stokes a destructive impulse that is condemned by Scripture.
Socialism also runs afoul of the first commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:3). Socialist governments seek to play God — to take His place as the ultimate sovereign. Consider the veneration that Russians once gave to the embalmed remains of Lenin and Stalin, the Nazi-prescribed prayer to Hitler ("Thy Reich [kingdom] comes, thy will alone is law upon the earth"), and the personality cult surrounding North Korea's "Dear Leader," Kim Jong-il.
The sixth commandment, "You shall not murder," is also widely ignored by Marxist regimes. Marx and Engels proclaimed that their aims could be "attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Their disciples, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other communist henchmen, killed 100-million people, a "tragedy of planetary dimensions," as the French publisher of The Black Book of Communism put it.
Barack Obama may say that the Bible tells him to be his brother's keeper (his youngest half-brother reportedly lived in a shack in Kenya on $1 a day at the time he said this), but he ought to go back and reread what God's Word actually says. Engels was right. Socialism has nothing in common with Scripture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)