Thursday, February 28, 2013

Obama vs. the News Media - Are We Venezuela Yet?

The attacks on Bob Woodward for daring to question Obama’s narrative on the sequester are now well known. 

What is not yet so well known is that is part of a pattern of White House intimidation of reporters and news outlets that do not toe the line.  One instance that is now coming out that the White House threatened the Washington Times for running columns by centrist Democrat Lanny Davis.  The threat included the possibility of having their White House credentials revoked.

One would think the White House would be pleased with how cooperative and downright obsequious the vast majority of the “news” media is.  But apparently only complete control of the media would please The Dear Leader.

White House intimidation of news media, complete with threats of banishment. . . .  I thought this was America, not Venezuela.

Have I mentioned Obama and his minions have a totalitarian streak?

Pray for Pope Benedict

I encourage all to join me in praying for Pope Benedict.

And that not only because this is the last day of his pontificate, but also because, as The Anchoress notes, the man is tired at best.

There has been much speculation about the *real* reason he is resigning.  I will not bother to repeat said rumors.  I will say I haven’t yet heard the resignation blamed on the Sequester of Doom, but maybe Obama and the noos media just haven’t gotten around to that yet.

But perhaps we ought instead to take his resignation statement at face value:

After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.

However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me.

Yes, do pray for Pope Benedict.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Obama Runs Away from Illegal Release

Maybe Obama realizes he’s gone too far in his mass release of detained illegals on the public.  The White House is now running away from this as fast as they can.  Uh, huh.

(Housekeeping: I wanted to do this as an update to my previous post.  But blogger is acting up, making it very difficult to do so.)

Downfall VI: Obama Uses Sequestration Excuse to Dump Illegals From Detention on Red States

I have not been one of those calling for the impeachment of Obama, but after this I am getting closer.  His regime, using sequestration “cuts” as a lame excuse, has dumped illegal aliens from detention onto Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and Arizona.  (Three red states and a purple state. I haven’t seen anything that there’s been a release on blue California.  Coincidence?)  Most or all of these were picked up due to (additional) law violations.

This is a willful dereliction of duty by Obama using sequestration, a mild slowdown in federal spending, as an excuse.   Yes, despite the Obama-fed noos media hype, sequestration is a very modest slowdown in federal spending.  If you haven’t seen this charted yet, look at the chart at the above link to get an idea just how modest.  Go ahead, I’m waiting . . .

O. K. Now repeat after me: “Sequestration doesn’t cut spending; it merely slows the growth rate of projected spending. Sequestration doesn’t cut spending; it merely slows . . ."    

Thank you.  Now what we have here is a president trying to make this modest spending slowdown as painful and noxious as possible even before it actually happens instead of making common sense moves to live within it and/or to work with others to adjust it.  Governors got a flavor of that in a meeting with Obama:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said the governors asked Obama to come up with better cuts, or even to delay future spending, like the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, if the budget situation is as dire as the administration says. "The answer to everything we got was no," Haley said. . . .

"Everybody has known that this was coming," [Gov. Bobby Jindal] said. "When did [Obama] go to his Cabinet heads and say, 'If you had to make these reductions, what would be the least painful way to do it?' "

There's no indication Obama has done anything to make the cuts easier on the public. To the contrary, it is in his political interest to make the cuts as painful as possible and then blame them on Republicans.

It certainly appears that is exactly what Obama is doing.  If so, that is, again, a willful dereliction of duty for political gain.  It is an outrageous dereliction of duty in any case:

Any way you cut it, this is a dangerous politically motivated maneuver coming from a President who absolutely refuses to not only restrain spending, but also refuses to prioritize spending, public safety be damned.  There is absolutely no grounds whatsoever for prematurely releasing prisoners- especially when the reasoning behind your cuts is based on what are essentially phony budget cuts to a 3.8 trillion dollar budget.

In 1980, it was Fidel Castro. who in an act of spite towards the United States released thousands of prisoners and mentally ill persons in what became known as the Mariel Boatlift.   We now have an American president- Barack Obama – whose extreme malice towards his own country [particularly red states – ed.] is directly responsible for endangering the people he was elected to protect and serve.


Rush led off his program this morning with this, stating, “This is an impeachable offense.”  So this is quickly becoming an issue.

I now think Obama’s act and the crime that will inevitably result may eventually cause enough outrage to contribute to bringing down his regime.  Therefore I’ve added this to my Downfall series, and substituted “Downfall VI” for “OUTRAGE”.

I do not think I emphasized enough that Obama took this action before the sequester.  There is no law or budget that required him to release criminals from detention.  He is completely without excuse.

HOUSEKEEPING: Blogger is acting up, messing up fonts, deleting this post and some of the links, etc.  I'm doing the best I can (unlike Obama) to make do.

Friday, February 22, 2013

Sequestration Circus

Thanks to picking up a friend way too late last night, this post may ramble a bit here and there.  But Sequestration is a circus anyway.  So here goes.

Think I was too gloomy yesterday when I said Americans will let Obama skate on his Sequestration antics?  Think again.  According a Pew Poll, 31% blame Obama for the Sequestration situation, whereas 49% blame Republicans in Congress.

Lemme get this straight.  Obama proposes and insists on Sequestration.  House Republicans pass a reasonable bill to avoid it.  Obama proposes nothing but yet more taxes to avoid it.  And instead of negotiating with Republicans, he’d rather travel around to demagogue and smear them (when he’s not playing golf, of course):

. . . he didn’t open a line of communication with House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until Thursday, a week before the spending ax hits. And when they did finally hear from Obama, the calls were perfunctory, with no request to step up negotiations or invitations to the White House.
That’s because Obama’s all-in on an outside strategy, doing just about everything other than holding serious talks with Republicans. In the last two days alone, he’s courted local TV anchors, called in a select group of White House correspondents to talk off-the-record, chatted up black broadcasters, and announced plans to stump next week at Virginia’s Newport News Shipyard.

BUT about half of the American people blame Republicans.

Well, about half of the American people are idiots now. There, I said it.  However, Guy Benson sums it up a bit more nicely than I do:

This is a great gig, if you can get it. You conceive of a bad idea, demand that it be given the force of law, sign it into existence, and adamantly oppose efforts to alter or undo it — then when it no longer serves your fleeting political purposes, you drop the whole thing in the lap of your adversaries, and most people buy it. Let’s face it: Average people don’t know what sequestration is, what it would do, or why it even exists. If they were briefed on the very basics, these numbers would probably shift a bit, but most Americans have no appetite for following Washington’s endless political brinksmanship. So what do they do when a pollster calls to ask about the latest impending crisis? They use shortcuts. Although he’s not especially popular, the president is viewed much more favorably than Republicans in Congress these days. Between this reality and the supine posture of his battered-spouse media supporters, Obama occupies the public opinion high ground in most of these battles, even before he begins his tendentious bullying. On broad and intuitive issues like guns and Obamacare, his powers of persuasion are limited. But on easily-demagogueable budget minutiae with baffling names like “sequestration,” a lot of people don’t quite understand what’s going, nor do they really want to know. So they pick the guy they like better.

But I would still add that the stupidity of Americans is on the rise.  Most Americans in the 80’s were not idiots like this.

And the stupidity has infected Republicans as well.  Some just want to let the Obama regime choose where to cut spending.  They think that is a smart move politically – let Obama be blamed for the spending cuts.

Let’s see.  You have a demagogue and tyrant.  But to solve supposed problems, you pass an enabling act to let him do whatever he wants.  Hmm.  Where have I seen that before?

O. K. maybe I am being a bit overwrought.  But to just give away the power of the purse to Obama would be the height of irresponsibility.  And God knows what it would lead to.

Why can’t Republicans simply tell it like it is?  Sequestration would only slow the rate of increase in spending and not by much.  It is not a crisis at all, and Obama is only trying to make it one because he is committed to growing the size and the power of the federal government as fast as he can.  Republicans should tell Obama “NO!” and to quit his whining when he doesn’t get his way.

But if Republicans instead cave yet again, I may go Third Party.  I mean it.  And I was a Republican Precinct Chair for 8 years.  I am that fed up with Republicans enabling Obama and Democrats in growing the federal beast. 

But I’m mean.  I support Sequestration because I want to kill pitiful cute doe-eyed seals.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Does Obama’s latest whinefest about Sequestration sound familiar?  Does it give you déjà vu even?  There is a reason for that.  And Allen Ginzburg summarizes the whining redux so well, I’ll defer to him:

Does this sound familiar?
1) There is an important problem that requires Congress and the President to act. (entitlement reform, viable budget, sequestration, fiscal cliff, debt limit hike, etc.)
2) House Republicans propose and pass a bill with what they consider a good solution to the problem.
3) President Obama and Senate Democrats realize it is easier to attack the Republican plan than propose their own, so they refuse to propose a real bill.
4) President Obama delivers several campaign-like speeches filled with strawmen portraying Republicans as unreasonable, uncaring and somehow responsible for a lack of solution.
5) No permanent solution is achieved.
It should. This cycle has been repeated on every major issue that has come up since Republicans took over the House in 2011.

And the sheer gall of Obama’s act exceeds even Bill Clinton at the height of his lying.

President Obama fails to mention several things in these speeches: First, the idea for the sequester cuts that he claims will be so harmful originated in his White House. Second, House Republicans already passed two bills replacing sequester cuts with other cuts, while Obama has not proposed any specific solution yet. And lastly, President Obama previously promised to veto any attempt to get rid of the cuts he now claims will be devastating.

Funny how the “mainstream” noos media doesn’t mention that much, either.

Ginzburg has a hopeful conclusion, however. I wish I could share his hope.

Someone should inform the President that Americans are tired of this game and the election is over. It is time for him to actually do his job.

Judging from the recent sordid election, I do not think most Americans are tired of Obama’s act.  Not yet anyway.  So enjoy Obama’s smearing and whining.  Because he’ll keep doing it until it backfires. 

And maybe he’ll keep doing it even then.  For when it comes to deficits he’d much rather demagogue than actually do something about them.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Howard Hendricks, R. I. P.

This morning Howard Hendricks departed to be with the Lord.  He was 88.

The man’s teaching had a great impact on a great many men, including me.  He exhorted and encouraged men to get off their duffs and be the ministers God has called them to be.  I know his teaching encouraged me and gave me some backbone during a time I was dealing with a lot of discouragement.

May God bless him beyond what we can even think or imagine and continue to use his good teaching.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

WaPost: Why Can’t the Pope Be More Like Us?

I’ve already alerted my readers that the transition to a new Pope will elicit much foolishness from the “news” media.  David Fischler is already having a field day with Papal Malarkey Syndrome (PMS) from the noos media and beyond.

The latest vomit of PMS that Fischler notes comes from the Washington Post, which laments that the Pope and his church is not oh-so enlightened like them.  Their conclusion is particularly rich:

Pope Benedict will leave behind a church facing the same debilitating problems that loomed after the death of Pope John Paul II — above all, how to remain relevant to an increasingly secular world and to its own changing membership. This pope’s response was to insist that only uncompromising adherence to past doctrine could preserve the faith. Catholics who seek a different answer will have to hope that a college of cardinals dominated by the pope’s appointees will choose a more progressive successor.

Oh yes, the church must be more “relevant to an increasingly secular world.”  The world is becoming more worldly, so the church should as well?  Huh?

No, the church must retain its distinctiveness, its saltiness if you will.  When the church tries too hard to be “relevant” it becomes less so and often downright silly, driving the very people away it is seeking to reach.  Marc Solas, no old grump like me, has put that down as one of the top 10 reasons youth leave the church:

10.  The Church is “Relevant”:
You didn’t misread that, I didn’t say irrelevant, I said RELEVANT.   We’ve taken a historic, 2,000 year old faith, dressed it in plaid and skinny jeans and tried to sell it as “cool” to our kids.  It’s not cool. It’s not modern. What we’re packaging is a cheap knockoff of the world we’re called to evangelize. . . .

We’re like a fawning wanna-be just hoping the world will think we’re cool too, you know, just like you guys!

Our kids meet the real world and our “look, we’re cool like you” posing is mocked.  In our effort to be “like them” we’ve become less of who we actually are. . . .  The minute you aim to be “authentic”, you’re no longer authentic!

Fortunately, we are more likely to be hit by an asteroid today than that the Cardinals will follow the Washington Post’s fond yearnings.  Thanks be to God.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Hints that Pope Benedict Would Resign

Perhaps Pope Benedict's resignation should not have shocked us after all.

He pointedly venerated a saintly pope who resigned:

Back on April 29, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI did something rather striking, but which went largely unnoticed.

He stopped off in Aquila, Italy, and visited the tomb of an obscure medieval Pope named St. Celestine V (1215-1296). After a brief prayer, he left his pallium, the symbol of his own episcopal authority as Bishop of Rome, on top of Celestine’s tomb!

Fifteen months later, on July 4, 2010, Benedict went out of his way again, this time to visit and pray in the cathedral of Sulmona, near Rome, before the relics of this same saint, Celestine V.

Then there was this from an interview:

From Light of the World, Benedict XVI’s 2010 interview with Peter Seewald:

Q:  Have you thought of resigning?
A: When the danger is great one must not run away. For that reason, now [2010] is certainly not the time to resign. Precisely at a time like this one must stand fast and endure the difficult situation. That is my view. One can resign at a peaceful moment or when one simply cannot go on. But one must not run away from the danger and say that someone else should do it.

Q: Is it possible then to imagine a situation in which you consider a resignation by the Pope appropriate?

A: Yes. If a Pope clearly recognizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has the right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign.

The Pope Resigns, or Bring in the “News” Clowns!

Nothing, like nothing, brings out noos media ignorance and prejudice like a major church event.  And Pope Benedict’s resignation is certainly no exception.  Knowledgeable faithful will now get the same feeling I’ve had for decades concerning political coverage:

When you actually know something about something and then read what journalists write about it, you can’t help wondering if they’re being just as ignorant and arrogant about everything else they write.

Michael Dougherty is not alone when he laments, “There is no way I’m prepared for the ignorance about to be on display in the media.”

And there is so much noos media buffoonery already on display, I hardly know where to begin.  Many stories use the resignation as a pretext for Catholic-bashing and Benedict-bashing, both overt and subtle, as if he were a one-man Illuminati personally responsible for Hitler and child abuse and every evil known to man, particularly that backward and unenlightened ancient faith, practice and even morals.  The nerve of some of those Catholics to not hurry up and be like the world!  That when the noos clowns aren’t busy getting their facts flat out wrong.

Probably the best source to monitor media fails in the coming days is the Get Religion blog.  And, yes, some of the fails will be amusing.  One of my favorites so far:

. . . the editors at the Associated Press have already fixed an awesome typo . . . that said the Pope Benedict XVI has, as is common among elderly men, experienced “some prostrate problems” in recent years.

But at least that typo has more than a little truth to it.

As for the rest of the noos media circus to come, I don’t know whether to brace or make popcorn.  Perhaps both.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Pope Benedict Resigns Effective Feb. 28th (UPDATED with video)

I was floored to flip on my computer after personal Morning Prayer and to see the news.

I feel I should note the momentous event, the first resignation of a pope in centuries.  But, to be honest, I do not think I have any edifying comment to make at this time.  I think very highly of Benedict, but you all probably already knew that.

So I will confine myself for now to saying I am praying for Pope Benedict and for the church.  Lord have mercy upon us . . .

Here is a video of the Pope making his announcement to the Consistory of Cardinals:

Friday, February 08, 2013

Obama’s Chair Empty on Night of Benghazi Attack

Readers know my expectations of Obama were never high.  Still, I am floored by this:

The outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed on Thursday that President Obama was absent the night of the lethal attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya - despite being told that the attack was occurring.

Speaking in front of senators investigating the terror assault which saw four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens lose their lives, Panetta said that Mr. Obama did not call or communicate with his defense secretary that night either. . .

Panetta said to Senator Kelly Ayotte, that President Obama left operational details for Benghazi 'up to us' - implying that the situation was under the control of Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

'Did you have any further communications with him that night?' Senator Ayotte asked.

'No,' Panetta replied.

'Did you have any other further communications? Did he ever call you that night to say how are things going, what’s going on, where’s the consulate?' she followed-up with.

'No,' Panetta said in response . . .

In addition, Panetta admitted to Senator Ayotte that there was no communication with anyone at the White House and that no one from the White House called for an update on the situation.

Again, I am floored.  What can one say to such a lack of engagement from a President when one of our embassies is under attack?

No wonder the Obama regime stonewalled investigations into Benghazi before the election . . . after using a months-old youtube video maker as a scapegoat, of course.  I doubt even the relatively feckless electorate of 2012 would have tolerated a POTUS willfully sleeping through an attack on one of our embassies without even a phone call to get an update.  Can’t let that information get out before Election Day. 

Not that the snooze media would report on this much anyway.  They still are quiet on the subject.  Protecting their hero is far more important than informing the public.

Not-so-by-the-way, Clint Eastwood’s Empty Chair speech looks downright prophetic now.

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

In Defense of Church Hoppers

Christianity Today has posted a thoughtful article on the subject of church hoppers.  It concedes that church hoppers have a bad reputation as consumerist and often live down to said reputation.  But things are usually not so simple.  Many have baggage and experiences that make it hard for them to settle down in a congregation.

My church search of 1988, when I moved back to Texas, certainly reflects that.  I wrote on that here nine years ago.  I admittedly was a little picky.  But my experiences back then gave me good reason to be so.  My criteria at the time:

1. I required any new church to hold to inerrancy. My readings and church experiences had convinced me of the necessity of that.

2. Churches in mainline denominations were immediately ruled out. (See the 2-14-04 entry.) [I had grown weary of being alienated from my own denomination as had become the case in the mainline Presbyterian Church.]

2 1/2. Denominations not exercising adequate church discipline were ruled out. That’s important as that ruled out the Southern Baptist Convention for me at the time. I know that may shock some readers. But at that time, the SBC took no action against pastors and congregations I found very objectionable.…

I know -- I was a hard man. In any case, ruling out the SBC was important as there are more Baptist churches in Texas than there are people.  [With changes in the SBC since 1988, I no longer consider church discipline such a problem in that denomination.]

3. At the same time, I didn’t want a legalistic church. … Legalism has always been a turn-off for me.

4. I wanted a good teacher as pastor. I felt starved of good Bible teaching, and I knew I needed it.

5. I wanted a big singles group with plenty of women in their twenties. I felt starved of good . . . O.K., I know that sounds crass. But I was in my late twenties by now and didn’t want to be single much longer, to put it mildly. So this wasn’t anything predatory. I wanted an excellent Christian wife.

6. Although my new home was a ways north of Dallas, I wanted to be involved in the Dallas area. I grew up there, and my heart was there. So I wanted a church down there, but one that didn’t take too long to drive to.

Like I said, picky, but mostly with good reason I still think.  Predictably, my church search took a while and was frustrating at times.  My singleness was a sore spot for one thing.  And even in the churchy Dallas area, ruling out the SBC and mainline denominations reduced the field greatly. It took about four months of going to different churches just about each Sunday before I decided on a home church, only to find it not a good home five years later.

Since then my church stays have been about ten years, then moving and now nine years and still going strong.  So I have a record of commitment to a home church.  Yet back in 1988, I found myself church hopping anyway . . . because I was determined to find a church to which I could commit wholeheartedly.

So do not assume bad motives to church hoppers.  “Church hopping” may be actually a sign of determination to find a church to commit to rather than a sign of a lack of commitment to the church. 

And, yes, singleness, having no children, having special needs children, past bad church experiences and more can make finding a home church difficult.  So we should be much quicker to pray for church hoppers than to judge.

Monday, February 04, 2013

Obama: “Nobody should be barred” from Scouting

During the Super Bowl pre-game marathon yesterday, CBS interviewed The Dear Leader.  For some reason I cannot divine, I watched. 

And I was floored when Obama said, “Nobody should be barred” from scouting.  I rewound my DVR to make sure I heard him right.  And he really said that.  Now in case skeptical readers think I am quoting him out of context, here is a fuller quote:

“Next week, the board of the Boy Scouts of America is going to vote on whether to end their national ban on gays in scouting,” asked anchor Scott Pelley. “Should scouting be open to gays?”

“Yes,” President Obama said, because “my attitude is that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity, the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life. And, you know, the Scouts are a great institution, that are promoting young people and exposing them to opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives. And I think that nobody should be barred from that.”

Now I know that Obama was addressing gays in scouting, and, yes, he surely did not mean axe murders should not be barred. 

But he said what he said.  “Nobody should be barred” from scouting?

When it comes to organizations that work with kids and youth, you d#$n well better bar people!  You had better be vigilant to restrict who has access to kids, particularly for extended times on camp outs and the like.

No matter what he really meant, and no matter one’s views about gays in scouting, Obama’s statement is sloppy and irresponsible at best.

And though he, as POTUS, is the honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America, BSA is a private organization.  Obama should have respected that and minded his own business.

But Dear Leaders aren’t very good at minding their own business, don’tcha know.

Friday, February 01, 2013

Downfall V: Majority Thinks Feds Threaten Freedom

Obama has not been shy about trying to lessen personal freedom through Obamacare, higher taxes, gun control, etc.  And although he got away with that last November, his continuing in that vein could easily backfire on him.  Most Americans still like their freedom, and many still have enough backbone to defend it.

And now a Pew Poll finds most Americans see the federal government as a threat to their personal freedom for the first time in at least two decades.   And it’s not really close.  53% see the feds as a threat to their freedom; 43% don’t.  This is a very significant shift in public sentiment about the federal government.

With the American love for freedom and insistence on it, I think this poll indicates an environment ripe for an angry political uprising against Obama.  Although the numbers of those who are content with being slaves on the liberal plantation have sadly increased, I still think enough Americans demand freedom to bring down a regime that constantly undermines it.

“Don’t tread on me” is not just an old slogan.


Downfall is an ongoing series anticipating and tracking what I expect will be the self-destruction of Obama.

The first post may be found here.  The series may be found here.