Big Dogs House » class warfare

Obama And Christ, Profit vs. Prophet

Big Dog — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 21:09:06 +0000

Barack Obama is a religious man of convenience. In other words, he is religious when it suits his purposes. He will quote scripture and tell us how we should all do things according to his incorrect interpretation of a Bible passage and then turn around and ignore the Bible when it suits his political agenda. Today Obama discussed Luke 12:48 (though it is unlikely he knew this is where his paraphrased quote came from). Obama said he did things (like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank) because of Jesus. Obama tells us that government needs to take more money from wealthy people because Jesus says those who have a lot are required to give more:

“And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,‘” Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing. [bold mine] Buzzfeed

Of course the scripture does not discuss wealth and deals with knowledge. Those who have been given the knowledge are required to do more because they have to teach. Even if we equate this with wealth, nowhere does it say that what is required is to give that wealth away. In fact, if you earned your wealth then it was not given to you but that matters not to Obama. The uninformed will swoon over his words and act as if Jesus was for wealth redistribution.

It is also important to note that nowhere in the scripture Obama mentioned does Jesus require someone else to ensure that those who have give. There is no mandate for Obama to step in and ensure those who have give to those who don’t.

What Obama conveniently igonres are Commandments from the Bible, the Commandments God gave to Moses. Obama is pushing for people who do not have things to be jealous and envious because others have what they do not. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. [Exodus 20:17].

Obama would take that which belongs to one person and give it to another and he would do so against their will. Thou shalt not steal. [Exodus 20:15]

And since Obama supports murdering unborn children and allowing those born after unsuccessful abortions to die it is obvious that Thou shalt not murder is something he choses to ignore.

I know these things come from the Old Testament and Obama was quoting Jesus because, by golly, Jesus guides Obama’s life.

So let us look at these two passages from the New Testament and use Jesus’ own words to see if Obama is really following the teachings of Christ:

For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies [bold mine] Matthew 15:19

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. [bold mine] Luke 3:14

Yeah, Obama uses scripture to push a social agenda and acts as if he is guided by the teachings of Jesus but it is obvious that it is a matter of convenience for him.

So as you listen to this so called leader telling you that it is government’s job to take property from one person and give it to another keep in mind that this is the liberal/progressive/Socialist teaching and not the teaching of Jesus.

Or as one of our Founders put it:

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams, 1787

Amen!

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Lackluster Democratic Debate

Big Dog — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:39:51 +0000

Last night the Democrats held a debate in Las Vegas and though supporters will claim their individual candidate won, the reality is that it was a pretty evenly matched contest. Obama and Edwards lost their nerve and refused to continue their attack on Clinton, Clinton played the woman card again (veiled as it might have been) and the entire field promised to give away the country for votes. Richardson will give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS, Clinton and Edwards will give free health care to everyone and Obama will make health care affordable for everyone which was actually the smartest of any proposal.

The candidates still wavered on Social Security other than to offer the Democratic staple of taxing the rich (note to candidates, that will not solve the problem) and they were elusive on merit pay for teachers. I recorded the event and watched it late last night but could not make it past the first part. It was nothing more than the same old Democratic mantra of raising taxes, class warfare, and promises none of them intend to keep.

Wolf Blitzer was a puppy dog and walked gingerly around Clinton fearing he would be to harsh. He failed to ask follow-up questions of her, legitimate questions, regarding her change of position on driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. The questions he threw out were so softball that I would not be surprised if they were furnished by the Clinton campaign.

All in all I saw nothing from any candidate that even looked presidential. Leadership requires people to take positions and be firm on them. None of these people takes a firm stance on anything and last night was no difference. With the exception of a few yes or no answers on ILLEGALS and driver’s licenses (the no Clinton gave was not followed up with a question about her change of position) these people nuanced every answer. When they stayed on target their answers were often preceded with some caveat that left a future way out.

I was impressed with Joe Biden’s command of foreign policy but that is all he brings to the table. Richardson sounded like a used car salesman, Edwards a snake oil salesman, Clinton a screeching owl, and Obama a preacher. Kucinich sounded like a raving lunatic and should be fitted with a straight jacket. Other than Biden’s foreign policy strength these candidates were unimpressive.

There was nothing said last night that brings new light on their positions. They regurgitated their talking points and tried to sell us the same bill of goods as they have been peddling all along.

None of these people is worthy of the White House and we will be in trouble if any of them gets elected.

More Democratic “Fairness”

Big Dog — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:48:58 +0000

Charlie Rangel has introduced a new tax scheme to extort more money from people making what he considers to be rich people money. The tax increase would offset a reduction in the taxes that corporations pay and it would increase the earned income tax credit. Range’s “fair” plan would charge a surtax of 4% on single people earning $150,000 a year and married people with an income of $200,000. That fairness would increase to 4.6% for those fortunate enough t make $500,000 a year.

I know that people in the lower income brackets will like this idea because they benefit from the labor of others. Democrats love to play class warfare and they love to tax the hell out of people, especially those who make a little money. It is not bad enough that people at these income levels have the same bills as everyone else but in addition to paying for their own expenses they will be paying for the expenses of others. This is not fair, no one will ever convince me this is fair and anyone who thinks this is OK is a socialist thief.

The federal government has no business taking money from us to give it to others. I thought our Constitution gave us equal protection under the law. How can it be equal when those who make more pay a higher percent of income?

People who make more money pay more taxes even when taxed at the same rate as others and that is fair. Making people pay a higher percent of income is wrong, immoral, and unethical. This is especially true when one considers lower income earners consume more of the taxpayer funded services.

Charlie Rangel is another tax increasing liberal Democratic moron. Couple him with the moron who runs Maryland and you have two tax raising morons.

I imagine the wealthy in Maryland are really going to love this double whammy. I guess it is time for folks to start trying to figure out how to reduce their taxable income…

Source:
Nasdaq.com