Thursday, September 27, 2012

My Open Letter to Obama on the Current State of Affairs

Mr. Obama,

I have noticed a very disturbing trend over the last decade or so, and in particular during your tenure in the White House.  The world seems to be in complete disarray.  Freedom and decency are waning while Islamofascism and other evils continue their ascendancy.  And all the while, most Americans seem to be oblivious to the ever-growing peril in our country and world.  I suspect this is simply because most Americans are too busy working and just trying to survive our day to day lives in this horrible economy of which you inherited and then exacerbated.  Of course it is not like you, our campaigner in chief, is helping to point out, let alone address any of these critical issues.  Indeed, it has now reached the point where you have fully disgraced the office of the presidency and are unworthy to sit in the oval office any longer.  Despite this, if the polls put forth by your allies in the sycophantic progressive mainstream media are to be believed, you are well positioned currently to be re-elected.  Again, the world is in disarray and logic no longer prevails.  Let me give you some specifics as to why I think this.

Mr. Obama, you have the gall to refer to the killing of our Ambassador and three other staffers in our Libyan embassy as a “bump in the road”.  No, Mr. President, it was an ACT OF WAR!  It was something that deserves addressing in a serious manner, even if it is hard to fit this into your schedule amongst your interviews with Pimp with a Limp, David Letterman, and your friends on The View.  Our country, our citizens, and our constitution are your ultimate responsibility to defend.  I distinctly recall you taking an oath in that regard, sir.  You have completely abrogated that responsibility, Mr. Obama, and in contrast to your wife’s sentiments, I am truly ashamed of my country for the first time in my life under your “leadership” accordingly.

You disingenuously told your fellow Americans that the riots and killings in Egypt and Libya were fomented by some ridiculous video that nobody has ever seen.  You then, on the day before yesterday at the U.N. General Assembly, admitted that it wasn’t the video that was the catalyst for this pre-planned attack of our sovereign soil on the anniversary of 9/11.  (Something which I am sure you already knew despite the fact that you have routinely missed nearly 40 percent of your daily intelligence briefings.)  Anyway, despite that, did you stand up for our constitutional right to free speech?  Nope.  Once again, you apologized to the world for the “a crude and disgusting video [that] sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.”  These terrorist scum attacked our embassies and killed our people, and YOU apologized.  I initially declined to make any comment on the issue until the facts were in and you were given a chance to react accordingly.  Since you seem to be content with the current status, I am now commenting accordingly.

As a supposed Constitutional Law expert, you should know that it is precisely such political and religious speech that our founders meant to protect when drafting the very first amendment in our Bill of Rights.  While the video was perhaps puerile and definitely offensive, it is NOT yours or anybody else’s right to curtail such speech.  Our freedom of speech is not meant to protect only the speech that is inoffensive to others.  Again, this is something you should know, sir. 

You had a chance to wax on the importance of our American exceptionalism as defined by our right of free speech at the U.N. the other day. You missed that opportunity for a teachable moment to the world and instead apologized.  As Newt Gingrich commented after your pusillanimous speech, your comments, “sent exactly the wrong signal. We’re not going to censor Americans on behalf of radical Islam and we need to say, calmly and comfortably, ‘If you’re going to be part of the modern world, that involves dissent.’ “

While we are on the subject, why do you find the need to defend Islam against anything that is deemed offensive by its practitioners?  I noticed that the vile and offensive Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” art work is going to be on exhibit again in New York this week.  Unlike your statement to the world that the offensive video was not created by the United States government, Serrano’s “art” of a crucifix in a jar of his urine WAS supported by tax payer dollars through the National Endowment for the Arts.  In other words, you DID build that, Mr. Obama! 

Why aren’t you apologizing to offended Christians for such a grave offense to our faith?  Is it because, while disgusted by it, we Christians understand that this asinine “artist” has a right to be offensive?  Is it because we aren’t rising up in the streets and storming the government offices for the National Endowment for the Arts and killing its director?  Once again, your inconsistency is showing.  Either defend our freedom of speech to the world, or apologize to us Christians too, Mr. Obama.

Your stewardship of the economy has been exceptionally poor.  Your infringement upon my freedom to exercise my religion via your still unconstitutional health care law is execrable.  Your weakening of our national security, disregarding our allies, and placating our enemies is dangerous and unforgiveable.  Your belief in the exceptionalism of every nation except the one which you were blessed to be elected president thereof is un-American.  The fact that you do not understand the wonderful differences and freedoms enshrined in our constitution for all Americans and instead see it as a list of “negative liberties” because it restricts government’s powers proves that you do not truly understand America. 

Consequently, you are not fit to be our president, no matter the results of the coming November election.  I am sorely disappointed in you, Mr. Obama, and will work tirelessly to explain to all within my very minimal sphere of influence why you should not be re-elected as our president.  You recently said that government cannot be changed from the inside, and perhaps that is true.  Regardless, we the people need to put you back outside of government where your dangerous ideologies can no longer harm this greatest of all nations that many Americans still love so dearly, myself absolutely included.

With great sadness, regret, and trepidation,

T. Paine.

Friday, September 21, 2012

A Joke and the Mainstream Media

A decidedly left-of-center political bias by the mainstream media is a well-known fact by nearly all Americans with the exception of those hyper-left partisans, and of course by the media itself who still cynically claim to be objective.   With that said, and in light of the disgustingly sycophantic coverage of Obama in this election cycle while portraying Romney as Beelzebub himself, I thought the following story was appropriate.  While the story is fictional, of course, and meant as a cynical joke, one almost wonders if it is not entirely beyond the realm of possibility that this is something that could theoretically be broadcasted on MS-NBC or printed in the New York Times to further denigrate those of us that refuse to kowtow to the progressive ideology.  

 A Harley Biker is riding by the zoo in Washington, DC when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage, and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back thus letting go of the girl.  The biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event.

The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life."

The Harley rider replies, "Why, it was nothing really; the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right."

The reporter says, "Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?”

The biker replies, “I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.”

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news of his actions and consequently reads on the front page:


...  and THAT pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The 9/11 Healing Field

The 9/11 Healing Field

This article was originally posted for September 11th 2011 - last year.  I wanted to re-post it this year in commemoration of the lives lost due to those horrible events that occurred on that day eleven years ago.  And yes, The 9/11 Healing Field is up again this year in the lush grassy expanse in front of the Sandy, Utah city hall.
As we commemorate the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on America that occurred on September 11, 2001, it is interesting to note how various places across our greatest of nations choose to mark the occasion.  Some places are holding solemn prayer vigils.  Others, as per President Obama’s urging, are volunteering in any number of ways to help their communities.  In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg is hosting a ceremony to commemorate the event where clergy and prayer are sadly not welcome.

I, however, am lucky to live in a rather refreshingly peculiar state.  It is quite different from anywhere else I have ever lived.  The people here are generally rather conservative and tend to be quite patriotic, which suits my temperament quite well.  They typically honor that patriotism with respect and service towards others and our nation.  I live in the suburbs of Salt Lake City, Utah.

In the next town over, Sandy, Utah, they have commemorated the attacks of 9/11 in a rather unique fashion.  The city has  erected what they call a Healing Field each year since 2003.  The beautiful verdant grassy field outside of the Sandy City Hall is lined with nearly 3000 American flags to commemorate the deaths of the 2,977 innocent victims that perished that horrible day, with the majestic Wasatch Mountain Range framing the background.  Each flag has a tag attached to it with a name and some biographical information for one of the victims lost that day.  See here for more information on this incredible Healing Field.

The field is nearly overwhelming when first seen.  This is even more so when you realize that the seemingly endless field of flags represents a fallen American for each single flag.

This year they will further be unveiling a new statue of the firemen that raised Old Glory in the midst of the rubble of the World Trade Center as a permanent memorial.  The statue will be entitled Hope Rising.

I happened by the place as I drove home from work today and spent a moment walking through the field while taking a few pictures.  It is amazing how an ordinary field can be transformed into such a solemn place.  I said a prayer to God that He will continue to show His love and mercy towards the loved ones that lost someone on that horrible day and further pray that we Americans will not forget that day and hopefully never have to suffer such an evil attack on our citizens ever again

Friday, September 7, 2012

A Christian Argument Against "Gay Marriage"

It would seem that the very important subject of gay marriage is a topic that has not even yet begun to wane in its ascendancy.  Indeed, there are many well-meaning folks that are trying mightily to make this into the new civil rights issue for our times.  While I think that such comparisons are strongly misplaced, and frankly do an injustice to those good people of color that had to struggle and suffer to finally reach equality in their rights under the law, I can see cleverness in couching the debate in such terms.  It is a debate that has even caused President Obama to reconsider his position on gay marriage and for him to state, unconstitutionally, that he will not have his administration enforce the Defense of Marriage Act that was passed in congress and signed into law back in 1996 under President Clinton.

The rhetoric from the pro-gay marriage side of the debate has become quite heated.  Often times, an immediate and vociferous proclamation regarding one’s bigotry and hatefulness is issued if one does not agree and support the concept of gay marriage.  Evidently it doesn’t occur to these folks or it is rather ignored that those of us that support and defend traditional marriage do so out of strong sociological reasons that support the concept that a family composed of a mother and a father is typically the very best environment in which to raise and support children.  The fact that many people who think this way also do so because of a strong religious Christian faith only seems to exacerbate the matter.  Indeed, many pro-gay marriage advocates and even many “enlightened” Christians think that God’s word is not necessarily eternal and on this issue it is antiquated.  It is an anachronism to them accordingly.

I have been confronted by pro-gay marriage proponents that have used the fallacious logic that “Christ never said anything about same-sex marriage”.  This argument is used as justification for some Christians to assume that Christ would not condemn such marriages, since they are still constituted in love.  The notion is silly frankly.  Christ also never explicitly said anything about rape, suicide, or pedophilia either.  Surely, following such flawed logic, they are not implying that our Lord is just fine with those things too.

While I absolutely do not support gay marriage or condone homosexual acts, I certainly do not have any hatred or loathing for gay people.  My thoughts on the issue, while having matured over time, have always been rooted in the same basic tenet that such actions were intrinsically wrong.  People with same-sex attraction though are God’s children, just as we all are, and should thus be treated with respect and dignity.

I was very pleased to read what the Catechism of the Catholic Church had to say on the subject, as I found myself in complete agreement with the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium and thus Christ’s own teachings accordingly.

CCC 2357 states: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, *141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." *142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

CCC 2358: The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

So what specifically did Christ have to say about marriage?  In the gospel of Matthew 19:3-12, Christ gives us His word on what marriage is supposed to be.

Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?”  He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate."   They said to him, "Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?"   He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.   I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."   [His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."   He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word,  but only those to whom that is granted.   Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

The people seemed to be amazed at what Christ told them regarding a valid marriage and how anyone who divorced and remarried was living in adultery.  “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry!” (Mt.19:10 )  The fact that Jesus didn’t clarify or back-pedal means that they had obviously understood his meaning.  Jesus knew that it would be difficult for fallen men to live by that definition of marriage, and yet he held firm.  “Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom that is granted” (Mt. 19:11).

Let’s look closely at what Jesus said next: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:12). The implications of Christ’s words are absolute then.  A man’s ability to be united to his wife sexually is was what made him a candidate for marriage. If he was unable to achieve sexual union because of a birth defect, castration, or a vow of celibacy, than marriage was not his vocation. 

Consequently it would seem that the foundation of Jesus’ whole argument is indeed biological. Unless “a man” and “his wife … become one flesh,” there is no valid marriage.  For Jesus, and for anyone committed to His teachings, it is impossible to speak of a “Christian same-sex marriage.” Jesus’ words rule it out absolutely. The parameters for marriage between Christians, the parameters for a sacramental marriage, have been set by Jesus and cannot be changed.  Indeed, as Christ said, “Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away” (Lk.23:33).

*141 Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10.
*142 CDF, Persona humana 8. [Rom.1:21-32, 1 Cor.6:9-11]