Archive for February, 2012

As the Presidential race heats up, Americans will start paying better attention to political events. With the Republicans enmeshed in brutal negative attacks flying back and forth among themselves, it’s no wonder President Obama’s approval rating is improving. By comparison, his affability is refreshing, and he appears to be a better alternative. This should cause his opponents concern, but it doesn’t seem to. They are far too busy eviscerating one another.

Normally, if a President has increased the national debt as much as Barack Obama has, while the unemployment rate has remained over 8 percent for his entire administration, you would expect his approval rating to be dismal, but that hasn’t been the case. It has remained near 50 percent, which is excellent considering the state of the economy. There are some reasons for this:

  1. Barack Obama is very likeable, which has certainly served him well. A strong family man, his wife’s charm has also added to his personal popularity among a large segment of the population.
  2. Being the first African-American hasn’t hurt him either. Americans have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt from day one, hoping he will prove to be a good leader.
  3. Throughout Europe and the rest of the world, American prestige was enhanced when he was elected—a black President in the country that fought a civil war over slavery.
  4. Additionally, he inherited a dreadful mess from Republican George W. Bush and the spendthrift Democratic Congress led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, coupled with big spenders like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.

As we approach the next election, however, the President—who had no record to challenge—now has one that is indefensible. Gas prices have doubled, and we have increased our debt by more than one trillion dollars for each of the four years Obama has led the nation, while not having a budget for more than 1,000 days.

The list of disastrous economic decisions has become enormous, which is why President Obama is trying to change the issues for this election. If he runs on his record, he will lose by a landslide, while taking Democrats down with him at every level of government.

That’s why he has begun to change the point of contention from economic to social issues. By focusing on contraception and a woman’s right to choose, his strategy is to muddy the water and squeak out a narrow victory. It may work, especially if the Republicans condescend to fight him on his turf. Their challenge is to maintain the focus on the economy—unsustainable debt, high unemployment, wasteful government expenditures, and crony capitalism.

If the Republicans can do this, they will win, but it isn’t going to be easy to stay focused. The mainstream media will rally behind the Obama candidacy and do everything they can to keep the news focused on social issues rather than Obama’s economic failures.

At this point, the end result is unclear with the White House up for grabs. Obama is a formidable candidate—no question about it. If his ability to govern were as strong as his ability to campaign, he would be a shoe-in, which is why the Republicans must remain focused on his record. If they can do this, which they have not been able to do so far, they will win handily. In one sense, the answer is easy, but achieving it certainly isn’t—not for the current crop of candidates anyway.

Read Full Post »

As a Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court in 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg—who taught at Rutgers and Columbia and advocated for the ACLU—was first appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by Jimmy Carter. With impressive credentials as one of the Supreme Court’s liberals, she has done little to distinguish herself either positively or negatively in her long tenure—that is, not until recently.

Speaking philosophically and in idealistic terms, she said this recently:

I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary . . . It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution—Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.

The shock and outrage over her statement, which many considered disrespectful, came swiftly, with many calling for her resignation. After all, she is sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution, which she admits she doesn’t like.

As I see it, Ginsburg isn’t the problem. She is just a symptom of the problem. Increasingly, we have leaders who do not embrace the core values of what has made America great. Instead, we have leaders who are apologetic for who we are, which does not bode well for the future.

Currently, we have a President who repeatedly repudiates our traditions and values, going so far as to bow to the King of Saudi Arabia—something no other President has ever done or would even consider. Forgetting that it is our strong patriotic symbols that hold us together as a nation, the radical left wing worldview, which is espoused by Obama, Ginsburg, and others, holds enormous power. That power has foolishly been entrusted to them by the American people.

Well, enough is enough. It’s time replace those who embrace anti-American sentiment with qualified men and women who will adhere to their commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution. If we fail to do this, in a few short years the United States will no longer resemble the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Jack Watts

Read Full Post »

Throughout Barack Obama’s tenure as President, many have suggested he is a “closet Muslim,” citing as proof his lack of support for Israel, bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, and his misstatement that there are “fifty-seven states”—which is actually the number of Muslim nations.

While interesting, none of these charges rise to the level of proof, especially since Obama was a member of Jeremiah Wright’s Christian congregation for twenty years. While definitely not mainline Christian, Wright, who is steeped in Liberation Theology, has a perspective that is anti-Israel and anti-American. Additionally, Wright gave Louis Farrakhan—a militant Muslim—a lifetime achievement award. This is guilt by association, however, and not proof that Obama is pro-Islam. None of Wright’s viewpoints have stuck to Obama, who apparently never listened to a word of Wright’s rhetoric, although a member of the man’s church for twenty years.

When it comes to Obamacare, however, there is proof—definite proof. Obama’s anti-Christian, pro-Islam position is now the law of the land, and his anti-Christian position has become clear recently by his administration’s anti-Catholic regulations.

Catholics have become infuriated by what they consider “a war on religion,” based on the Obama administration’s recent decision on “employers’ birth control coverage.” According to Monsignor W. Ronald Jameson, “There can be no doubt that religious liberty in our country is in jeopardy.” He added, “This is the time to speak up. This is the time for all voices to be heard.”

Jameson’s ire was based on the controversial ruling that President Obama made recently, mandating that all employers, as part of the 2010 health care overhaul, must cover in full the cost of female contraception, which contradicts the fundamental beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. Doctrinally, Catholicism opposes the use of birth control, which the Obama administration knows full well. To Catholics, it appears that they have been singled out for persecution.

Leading Catholics and other Christians point out that Obamacare negatively impacts Catholic-affiliated organizations—schools and colleges, hospitals, charities and the like—which employ multiplied thousands from all religious faiths, none of which qualify for a religious exemption.

At the same time, Obamacare protects Islamic beliefs—specifically the concept of Dhimmitude, which most Americans don’t understand, but they should. It’s now the law of the land, and it’s located on page 107 of the healthcare bill—Obamacare.

Obamacare allows the establishment of Dhimmitude and Sharia Muslim diktat in the United States. Muslims are specifically exempted from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling,” “risk-taking,” and “usury.” In Islamic nations, it is banned. Therefore, according to Obamacare, Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on their belief system.

Islamic beliefs are protected; Catholic beliefs are not. It’s as simple as that.

According to Obamacare, Christians can have IRS liens placed against them for not purchasing health insurance, while Muslims are exempted, based on their religious beliefs. This is Dhimmitude.

Barack Hussein Obama, as President, has created legislation that rewards Islam and punishes Christianity. Not only is this patently unfair, it is real and tangible proof of Obama’s clear preference of Islam over Christianity.

Read Full Post »