Helping Obama be Successful

OK, so the two big questions here are these:
How does one measures success?
Do we want success?

There has been much discussion over whether those who oppose out new President's collectivist ideology should wish him success. I strongly oppose the collectivist and immoral ideologies to which Barack Obama has attached himself, from his pro-abortion stance to the radical agenda of forcing mainstream acceptance of homosexual practices to his obvious socialist collectivist agenda.

However, I want to see him be extremely successful. But instead of success at achieving his personal agenda, I want him to be successful in fulfilling his oath of office.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. - United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8

Basically, by taking this oath of office, President Barack Obama has formally stated that, for the next four years, his success will be measured by how well he faithfully executes the Office of President of the United States, including being absolutely committed to the preservation, protection and defence of the Constitution of the United States. Those well versed in the Constitution should immediately realize this Oath puts Obama (the President) very much at odds with Obama the collectivist and promoter of a practice that takes from unborn children the very life that the Declaration of Independence says is an inalienable right given by the Creator.

According to the Oath President Obama took to assume his office; to be successful, he must act in accordance with the Constitution and against the goals of nearly every one of his supporters who helped him get elected. I wish him much success in that endeavor, and first of all success in realizing what being "successful" now requires of him.

I call on all Americans to help our President succeed, through respectfully encouraging him to follow the Constitution, through politely offering suggestion to him and to all our elected officials, and by offering Prayer to Almighty God that he and all of our leaders be granted the wisdom to see how they truly should lead this "One Nation Under God", and the courage to do so; that our nation not perish, as nations are prone to do when they decide to turn their backs on their duty and push aside the hand of Divine Providence.

I personally have three main areas in which I would like to see our new President be successful:

1. To realize that the unborn are human beings, whose life is a gift of God that no-one can justly rip away as a matter of convenience; and on that basis to end the nightmare of abortion-on-demand that has so savaged and degraded our Nation.
2. To realize that homosexual practices are a stain on our culture and that they should be discouraged, rather than forcing acceptance. I would also suggest we need to not stop there in seeking to rebuild strong families, but to reverse our casual attitudes about sex and marriage in general.
3. From an economic standpoint, I believe the best thing we could do right now is enact the FairTax. I also believe President Obama is in a unique position to convince both those Americans previously uninformed about this marvelous plan to unfetter economic productivity, and to convince those in Congress (some of whom will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into adopting this plan that would eliminate the vast majority of the symbiotic relationships between paid lobbyists and lawmakers) that they had better get to some real change and get rid of the IRS!
   

On Dangerous Ground

After the tragedy that Americans chose yesterday, I had to search for direction from the source of all direction. My Bible first fell open to the first chapter of Hosea (and yes without looking for it) which pretty much answered the "why". Thereafter I did look up another verse from the New Testament, just to make sure what passage it was. Luke 20:25.

Luk 20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

Exactly why it's such a tragedy, I think many of those who chose it would either not believe it or not understand it if I did explain my reasoning to them; while the rest would think wonderful some of the very things which are most tragic.

Therefore the only explanation I'll give for now is so that it won't be assumed I'm saying the one thing of which I'll probably be most accused. If the choice had been for someone who is as suited to the Presidency as Clarence Thomas is to the Supreme Court, it would be a wonderful day for rejoicing. Also that the tragedy is not just the "anointing" of Barack Obama, but of increasing the numbers of those who share his ideology in the House and Senate as well.

The most appropriate thing I can think of to share from a secular source are the lyrics of the song "Silent Running (on Dangerous Ground)" by Mike and the Mechanics. For those of you who may not remember it, there is a link to the YouTube video after the lyrics.

Silent Running

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

Take the children and yourself
And hide out in the cellar
By now the fighting will be close at hand
Don't believe the church of state
And everything they tell you
Believe in me, I'm with the high command

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

There's a gun and ammunition
Just inside the doorway
Use it only in emergency
Better you should pray to God
The Father and the Spirit
Will guide you and protect from up here

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For some day sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KL_fgWgK40

I have changed one word in copying the lyrics here; turning the phrase "Don't believe the church and state" into "Don't believe the church of state", to reflect my belief that the Biblical principles which were so important to America's founders are being replaced with a completely different set of principles which are taught religiously through the "temples" of the public schools and a perverse entertainment media.

While many of us are praying "God Bless America"; I fear that instead "Reverend" Wright has gotten his wish.

But since the Apostles' inspired writings promoted general obedience to government (except in those things where it would be a direct violation to God's word) and since some of those epistles were even written during the reign of Nero, I don't see how practicing Christians today could think God expects less of us.

Read My Lips; "New World Order"

Many contend it was "Read my lips; no new taxes" that cost George HW Bush critical support and handed the Oval Office over to Bill Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached. I think it had as much, and possibly more, to do with his use of the phrase; "new world order".

Whatever was right with George Herbert Walker Bush, his fatal flaw of being a globalist became more apparent with time. Whatever was wrong with Ross Perot (and there was plenty), he seemed to be the lone voice of those who still believed in the sovereignty of the United States of America.

I believe it was the uneasy feeling of recognizing Bush 41 as a globalist that sent enough otherwise republican voters to Perot, and resulted in the election of Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton; unfortunately another globalist.

If we had any doubts about where George W Bush stands regarding American sovereignty, his support for open borders and supposed "free trade" agreements that give away the farm to other countries (rather than being fair for both sides) make it plain that Bush 43, like Clinton before him and Bush 41 before him, is a globalist.

Now we're told that the next president will be either Hilary Rodham Clinton (a globalist), Barack Hussein Obama (another globalist), or John "Z-visa" McCain (again a raging unquestionable globalist). What's amazing about McCain is that he seems to want a well-equipped military that smiles and waves as it watches our country both invaded and given away, as long as the people taking over our country aren't carrying guns. And what else is the agenda behind the Man-Made Global Warming movement that McCain supports but globalism? (that and another excuse for higher taxes)

I'm not saying we need a protectionist like Ross Perot, or an isolationist like Ron Paul; but I think at least part of what makes Ron Paul supporters so passionate is that they see the erosion of our national sovereignty that has resulted from the globalism under our last three presidents.

I am saying we need a strong defender of our national sovereignty, like Mike Huckabee. He understands the line between sovereignty and protectionism, and between free trade and globalism. He is clear about the difference between co-operating with other countries for security and the "internationalism" of turning over our security to the approval of foreign nations.

We keep hearing that "change" is the theme of this presidential election cycle. The Democrat message seems to be that "change" primarily means changing parties. I say that in one of the most important issues for our country, we've had the same old thing ever since Bush 41 replaced Ronald Reagan. From Bush 41, through Bill Clinton, to Bush 43, we've had a globalist in the White House. In that, yes we desperately need a change.

We stand at the proverbial crossroads and we have a clear choice. Will we rediscover the path of American Sovereignty to exceptional greatness? Or will we continue down the path toward globalism and repeat the "national malaise" of the Carter years?

The President of the United States should be more than someone who wants to keep us physically safe, or who puts a priority on what other countries think of us. Whether or not our next president is Mike Huckabee, we absolutely must make sure it is someone committed to the United States as a free and independent sovereign nation. To do otherwise would put our security and our freedoms at the whim of "the Global community" and make a mockery of our Constitution. Isn't protecting our nation from all threats both foreign and domestic, and upholding the Constitution of the United States what being President is really all about?

One final note: Going along with the Global-Warming crowd really is a huge threat to our sovereignty. One of the "dirty little secrets" behind the issue of securing our borders (both south and north) is the large percentage of oil we get from Mexico and Canada. If we are ever to really reclaim our national sovereignty, we absolutely must become energy independent and as quickly as possible. That means not only "alternative energy" in the future, but an immediate increase in domestic oil production, and I mean now! Readers probably won't have to think very hard to figure out which of the Presidential candidate is pushing a comprehensive plan for energy independence, rather than a "comprehensive immigration reform" Z-visa amnesty. Right again... Mike Huckabee!

When You "Cry Wolf", Mean It!

I think I finally figured out how to define the frustration I feel with Washington Republicans, and possibly why they lost both houses of Congress. The Republicans have been treating Social conservatives like the Democrats treat "minorities". (I put "minorities" in quotes because we're all Americans. The Democrats just seem bent on dividing us in their attempts to conquer.)

{{Warning! You are about to enter an unrestrained (but still G-rated) "Free Speech" zone! Names have been withheld to protect the innocent, the guilty, and those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about.*}}

Democrats engage in fear-mongering among "minorities"; usually accusing Republicans of things like not "caring" about them, and wanting to return to "Jim Crow" laws. Likewise, Republicans bang the drum on saving us from the Democrat agenda of abortion-as-birth-control, government endorsed gay-unions, and generally promise to preserve the traditional American way of life. The only difference between the two is that "minorities" really have nothing to fear from Republicans, and can do much better than the "daily fish" the Democrats dangle. Both have "cried wolf" far too many times, without showing enough concern about "the wolf" to actually get rid of it. (To make it clear, lest I be accused of promoting something totally irrational; I'm talking about taking care of the issues, not getting rid of the other party.)

The Democrats, are still peddling the same old Johnson-era failed social programs; designed to try and make citizens dependent rather than self-sufficient. They focus first on those whose ancestors were victims of rampant bigotry, and try to convince them that nothing has changed. Meanwhile, rather than taking action that helps to actually raise those who might still be considered to have some starting disadvantage (such as broken homes created by the very social programs the Democrats instituted); they only act to lower those who have achieved by shackling them with crippling taxes and irrational levels of controls on free enterprise.

The Democrat's ultimate end, of course, is to make us all into a dependent class. How else could one possibly explain the recent illogical attempt to expand the S-CHIP program to include 24 year olds making three-times the "poverty level" in income; but as a head-start on enslaving us all to government run, socialized medicine. Anyone who disagrees with the President's recent veto of the S-CHIP travesty needs to pay more attention! (That doesn't include closet socialists, who should either become enlightened as to the virtues of mildly-monitored capitalism under a representative republic; or move to Canada and get it over with!)

As for the GOP, they perpetually point out the existing tendency of Democrats to expand government to the point of being an all-controlling socialistic "Big-Brother" on fiscal issues, and being unrestrained libertines on social issues. Meanwhile the Republican leadership takes no serious action to actually slow abortions, take a stand against sexual degradation (including the false idea that pornography is protected "free speech"), or to get serious about protecting our borders. Like most Democrats, most Republicans seem to think that if they actually solve the problems they speak about (real or inflated), they won't have enough fears left to lure their respective voters to the polls.

Now we have a field of Republican presidential candidates, of whom only one has done more than pay lip service to the issues most dear to Christian Conservatives; and I'm not positive even he is quite as firm on the issue of illegal invaders as I'd prefer) Meanwhile a few big-name supposed "Christian leaders" are joining internationalist country-club libertarian-republicans to assault that lone voice of moral reason.

As one of those "Christian Conservatives" who have been the life raft of the Republican party; I'm getting sick and tired of keeping them afloat while most of their supposed "front-runners" snicker up their collective sleeves at the very values that give us buoyancy.

THAT'S JUST CRAZY!!!

{{sound of an enormous sigh}}
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...beeeep...

*{PS:Those who don't have a clue what I'm talking about should try listening to Rush Limbaugh once in a while!}
{PPS: Reading David Limbaugh's book "Persecution" wouldn't hurt either.}