Tag Archive: constitution

“Well, the “Hope and Change” halloween did not go over as well as I hoped. As I would reach into the candy bags to take candy from the kids to give to other kids that did not have equal access to candy, the kids got upset! Over and over and over. I reassured them that I understood and gave them pocket Constitutions!”


Persistence and knowledge of your rights as deemed by the US Constitution helped this guy remain cool, calm, and collected for almost half an hour as border agents threatened to get their way. Half way through the conversation, agents even insinuated that you are guilty until proven innocent. I don’t think I would have lasted as long.

Peace at any cost, right?

Because he’s a crackpot? A nutjob? A patriot? Not shiny and polished as our current president-elect? A true upholder of the Constitution? Since when does serving 10 terms in office, delivering babies, and having a lock on why the economy is in the crapper somethinng to be frowned upon that’s not worthy of assigning him the task of fixing the current state of affairs with this great nation? After all, that’s why so many American’s voted for BO. First order of business is to fix the economy, right? That is what all of you wanted, right?

Why does the media love to get sound bites and interviews with him? Why did so many people contribute so much money is so little time to help this man’s presidential campaign? Why were they silenced after he wasn’t nominated? Why did Ron Paul refuse to run as an independent? The answers are out there if you know where to look.

In the meantime, CNN is featuring RP again on his views and thoughts about our economy and state of the G.O.P. Why is he the only one with the clarity to not only explain the problems of this country but to offer the paths towards reaching solutions? Talk about a massive FACEPALM!

(taken from CNN)

During the debates in the Republican Presidential primary, even though I am a 10-term sitting Representative Member of Congress, I was challenged more than once on my Republican credentials. The fact that I was repeatedly asked how I could be a Republican when I was talking a different language than the other candidates answers the question of how the Republican Party can slip so far so fast.

My rhetorical answer at the time was simple: Why should one be excluded from the Republican Party for believing and always voting for:

• Limited government power

• A balanced budget

• Personal liberty

• Strict adherence to the Constitution

• Sound money

• A strong defense while avoiding all undeclared wars

• No nation-building and no policing the world

How can a party that still pretends to be the party of limited government distance itself outright from these views and expect to maintain credibility? Since the credibility of the Republican Party has now been lost, how can it regain credibility without embracing these views, or at least showing respect for them?

I concluded my answer by simply stating the Republican Party had lost its way and must reassess its values. And that is what needs to be done in a hurry.

Children do not need to be dragged into politics. Forcing your political opinions upon your children goes against what this country was established in the first place. They’re not mature enough to understand all the nuances of each candidate, much less all the mud slinging that comes with it. Teach them about democracy, the political system, the current leaders in postion and that’s it! Heck, I’m just now getting involved in all of this and it makes my head spin!

Here are two prime examples.

Obama Youth Junior Fraternity Regiment


Anti-Obama t-shirts cause disruption in class.

What are we teaching our kids at such an early age? Hope in the country, or hate in the nation? Let them see people for what they are worth so they can formulate their own opinions when they are mature enough to do so. Have them show you how they see things from their perspective. You’re the ones running this country for their future’s sake. They’re the ones that are going to take care of us when we’re too old!

(From the Saddleback Presidential Forum, moderated by Rick Warren)

Christianity: What does it mean to you to trust in Christ?

Obama says he is redeemed through Jesus Christ and that it is a daily source of sustenance and strength. He further explains that, “If I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what He intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully, will be washed away.”

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Christianity as such:

The religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, sent by God. They believe that Jesus, by dying and rising from the dead, made up for the sin of Adam and thus redeemed the world, allowing all who believe in him to enter heaven. Christians rely on the Bible as the inspired word of God.

So if you are a Christian, knowing you are redeemed, meaning your sin debt has been paid in full, there should be no doubt that no matter how many times you screw up in God’s eyes, you are still saved. Of course, as a Christian, you should then pursue an even closer relationship with God which naturally keeps you from sinning as much as you did when you were not saved. Yes, you will sin, we all have and will, but as Christians, we should never stray from the path as we once did. I had to review that little clip several times because when Obama says, “And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully, will be washed away.”, moderator, Rick Warren chuckles but Obama never cracked a smile. Perhaps he was trying to get the answer we Christians wanted to hear out of the way so he could to move on to another point? Perhaps he was having problems getting his point across? As a Christian, I have no problem explaining what Jesus Christ did for me and I have fervor sharing the Gospel to those who want to learn more, so as you can see, Obama’s response so far, left me scratching my head. Does he doubt his salvation? Did he not attend a church who’s doxology reads:

“You promise to all who trust you forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, your presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in your realm which has no end.”

Most people would gloss over it and continue to listen; when I heard it, I just thought that sounded rather awkward. He continues to his next point…

“But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds. The expectations I think that God has for us, and that means, thinking about the least of these, it means acting, well, acting justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly… with our God. And that, I think trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis, knowing that you’re gonna fall a little bit short each day and being able to kind of take note, saying, “Well, that didn’t quite work out the way I think it should have but maybe I can get a little bit better.” It gives me the confidence to try things, including things like running for president, where you’re gonna screw up once in a while.”

I think I get the gist of his conclusion but it still leaves me confused. After all, why would I be rewinding my DVR to gain a better understanding of his response? I know there are several degrees of Christ following. The more you choose to have Christ be the model of your life, the more the Light of Christ shines for others to see. Kind of like the “lighthouse in the dark storm” metaphor. Some will have a 100,000 watt bulb in the lighthouse, others may have 10 watts, while others may even have a three-way bulb. You are given by God the light bulb that best suits you, how much you want to let this bulb shine for others is totally up to you. At least, 75% of the population of this country are Christians and they’re not all of the same degree. Some are close to the lighthouse while others are way off course. After this initial question posed to Obama, I feel like the lights are on but the glass is a little foggy and not allowing as bright a light to shine through.

Abortion: 40 million abortions since Roe v Wade. At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view.

Obama plays this answer in as diplomatic a way as possible. Not wanting to step on anyone’s toes, he quickly points out that the answer will vary depending on where your viewpoint comes from and that his ability to answer that question with specificity is “above my paygrade.” Ironically enough, he then, at length, proceeds to answer on his general thoughts with specificity – I think.

Point 1 for him: “There is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so, I think, anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention.”

Point 2 for him: “I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade and I come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don’t think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways. In consultation with their pastors, or their spouses, or their doctors, their family members…”

Honestly, the rest of his response started to sound like radio static because like a Pavlov dog, my ears will only start to listen once I hear the answer to the question given. Was he not being redundant when he stated in his first point that if you deny the issues, then you’re not paying attention? Hello?!! Hey Obama, in the dictionary, under “redundant” it says “see Redundant”! He continue by stating he’s pro-choice, that abortions have not gone down even during the Bush Administration, he wants to work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies, healthcare needs to be available, blah, blah, blah, then all of a sudden, he manages to get to the real crux of the question – I think.

“If you believe that life begins at conception then, and you are consistent on that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you. What I can do is say, “Are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies?” So that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions, and as an example of that, one of the things I’ve talked about is how do we provide the resources that will allow a women the choice to keep a child?”

Nope. I don’t think he answered the question posed on him. He managed to avoid the question by taking two steps back and explaining that perhaps if women are more educated and provided the resources we would control the number of abortions. But the problem remains the same. There are still going to be a large number of women who are going to get abortions. So, Mr. Obama, you still need to address at what point does a baby get human rights? I didn’t appreciate the smoke and mirrors response.

Marriage: Define marriage.

Finally, he gets applause from the audience (because he finally answers a question?) by clearly stating that marriage is a union between a man and a women, AND he adds, “As a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” So naturally, Rick Warren, begs the question of whether Obama should put his money where his mouth is by ammending the constitution with this definition. Immediately, he answer that he wouldn’t because historically we never defined marriage in the Constitution. OK, logistically he’s got a point there. As a believer, I understand that God has given us a “free will” to do as we please. As an American citizen, we are given the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As a Christ-follower, we also understand that we are to not be stumbling blocks for other and that we always need to pursue His will for His glory. So in this instance, he tries to please God with his words of the definition of marriage but then also pleases the party that supports him. We cannot serve both sides because eventually, one side will suffer.

That’s a lot to chew on, isn’t it? It is for me. I’m trying to understand this because I feel there is a duty as a citizen to know the candidates and a Christian to know how God wants me to see the candidates for who they are. If I appear to sound against Obama, it’s not my intention. McCain will be seen with the same scrutiny when I get to see what he says.