Today, Mr. Transparency, President Obama, will be having his first news conference in months. If I were in the audience, I would like to ask him a few questions.
1. What is the definition of Day One. Is it used loosely as your original book of the bible may be interpreted as?
2. When you took the oath of office, which country or organization did you think you were pledging to?
3. Why is there a delay in finding a home church? Are you waiting for the mosque on ground zero to be built?
4. There are a number of traditions that President upholds. Why did you pick breaking the tradition of honoring our fallen? Could you not have chosen to skip the turkey pardon or egg hunt ceremonies instead?
5. Will you be traveling to Afghanistan to honor the fallen soldiers of Al queda
6. We all know of your passion for vacation. Will you be traveling to the gulf coast to get some beach time in?
7. We now see that you used the power of voice to “plug the damn hole”. Why have you not used the similar power of voice to create jobs.
8. Is Joe Sestak a Liar?
9. When it comes to your current job, are you hoping for some change?
Rats, I just heard Rush beat me to the punch. Oh well.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Through out his Presidency, Obama has been haunted by the pesky posts from Sarah Palin. Most recently, Palin and Obama, via the mouth of Robert Gibbs, have been exchanging words for the Presidents mismanagement of the biggest crisis of his Presidency. Gibbs said that Palin needed more information about how oil drilling is done. Considering one of Palin's biggest resume builders is her work with the oil industry, I think that comment just highlights how insane Obama and those around him are. "Plug the damn hole" is the leadership we get. Perhaps Obama should take his boot off the throat of half the nation and stick it in the hole.
With the Palin/Obama exchange, that got me thinking about what would things have been like had we elected Palin as President (assuming she was the nominee). Well, When it comes to the oil crisis, I think Palin's experience would have been perfect for just such a situation. Isn't that ironic that the thing needed the most was the most scorned during the campaign. I think that instead of spending 18 months blaming Bush, we would have heard somebody try to speak encouragement to the nation as Reagan did in the 80's. We would not have taken over the banks or the auto-industry. We would not have socialized medicine. We would not have passed stimulus and all of its children. She would not have taken her focus off of the economy to focus on socialist programs that the nation 2 to 1 are not in favor of. She would not have divulged our national strength to the Russians and Chinese. She would not approach every nation from China to Liberia from a position of weakness. She wouldn't have abandoned our Eastern European Allies. She would not have snubbed the Israeli Prime Minister. She would not have allowed Caldoron to put down our nation and stand in agreement. She would not attack a state of the Union more harshly than Iran. She would have only bowed to the only one worthy of bowing to, our Lord. In summary, she would not have acted stupidly.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Before I dive right into the case for Christ as presented in the Series Finale of Lost, first let get to my extreme dissatisfaction with the conclusion of this show. It is true that the writers did present a suspenseful and emotionally gripping show. I have no doubt that the finale will win an emmy, as will Mathew Fox for his acting in the show. However, I watched this show for 6 years to uncover the island mysteries, mysteries that increased year after year. What the final season has managed to do is solve very few of these mysteries and solve them in an inconsistent way. If you divide season 6 into two parts, you have purgatory and island tasks. Of course, the happenings on the island are supposed to be the driving force of the show. What the writers and producers did was make the island sequences nothing more than a series of challenges from Amazing Race. The purpose of protecting the island and destroying the man in black did not live up what had been built up to in the previous seasons. Why in season 1 did Locke, who was “special”, think the smoke monster was beautiful, only to have it become the most dangerous thing to humanity. That is a huge inconsistency. In the end, Jack put the stopper back in the drain of evil and the TASK was accomplished, then he dies. But nothing was resolved. Who was the man in black and Jacob, and Jacob’s mother. Who is the 4 toed statue and who built the temple. Why was Walt the most important thing and suddenly written out of the show. And for that matter, why was Aaron nothing more than a baby despite his importance in season 1.
Nothing was truly resolved. But wasn’t the purgatory rememberance moment beautiful. It was touching to see these characters find peace after they had been through so much together, but that wasn’t the real point of the show. If the ultimate resolution of the show was to show how a “community” (puke) can find their way through purgatory and finally move on to the after-life, then what happened on the island was inconsequential. They may as well picked random strangers to for the sideways purgatory scenes. You must separate the idealistic portrayal of purgatory from the remainder of the show in its examination.
My wasn’t it beautiful to see them all move on. Even old Ben Linus will eventually move on after he has worked a few more things out. Murderers, adulterers, thieves, and blasphemers. It didn’t matter how they lived their life so long as they eventually made peace with it in purgatory. Adolf Hitler may as well been sitting beside Ben still working on his issues. Remember Ben killed all the dharma people with poison gas. And so now I get to my main point, how this series finale is a case for Christ. What this show portrayed is a common belief in transcendental, humanistic, eastern mysticism in which you can eternally ponder yourself into the next state of being. The purgatory in the show allowed each of these people, regardless of any action or choice they made while alive in reality, to achieve the same state of after life as anyone else. Essentially, once they become good enough or mentally balanced enough in purgatory, they can move on. The fundamental flaw here is that it negates the value of the choices we make while alive. God has given us one life to live (pardon the pun). What we do with our time here on this earth is what determines how we “move on”. The problem with internalization and good deeds is that it is a subjective criteria. Who determines the level of internalization or good deeds required to move on. How can one have any assurance that they have reached this point. What is the incentive to reach this point if you have an unlimited number of existences to get it right. By a humanists definition, why would they even need a purgatory if they were able to justify to themselves (since there would be no God) every action they ever took. There are no absolutes. If we are all trying to achieve a direction, but there is no absolute destination or route, we are all LOST.
God is not a writer of a television drama. His resolution does not leave any mysteries. His direction and path are clearly defined. God loves us more than island Jacob. God does not want us to live aimlessly in endless existences trying to achieve nirvana. God is our creator and our judge. As he judged us with the fall of Adam, he alone will judge us again at the end of time. He does not leave it to us to judge ourselves or one another. To atone for our sins, he sent his son to die for us to cleanse our sins once and for so that who so ever believes in his death and resurrection and repents of their sins shall receive eternal life. God gives us a choice, to believe in what Christ did, or to reject it. An absolute choice. A yes or no answer with an absolute destination. There are consequences and rewards for what we do with our lives. As the lyrics to Amazing Grace say so well, "We once were Lost, but now am found"
Friday, May 21, 2010
For all previous Presidents, the question was always which direction they would take the country, more right or more left. For Obama, the question must be revised. It is clear that there is not a single decision Obama has made, nor statement he has made that has been to the benefit of this nation, both domestically and internationally. The question is whether Obama is totally inept as a leader or he is purposefully flushing our country down the toilet. I believe the answer is that it is purposefully done. Since it is purposefully done, I then have to ask to what ends is this being done. How does Obama and others benefit from the total destruction of our Nation and the world economy. Is it about serving special interests. I think not. The most vilified special interest is Halliburton. If the economy fails, it fails for them to. The same for Big Oil and Big Pharmacueticals. It is the same for big and small everything. No, I think it is about the gaining and keeping by a very few, of the power to control the world through the elimination of national boundries and freedoms. Think otherwise? Tell me how what he is doing is good for our country?
Posted by jrchaard at 8:00 AM
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I've taken a long break from blogging because, frankly, I can't stand this administration and am scared of the direction the country is going in. When I see our President stand next to the leader of a nation that encourages its dissident citizens to violate our law and invade our country in the millions so as to alleviate the social strain and to reap the benefits of money sent back from its exported works, and that President then criticizes the citizens of a state of the union for which he has sworn to protect, my stomach turns. But that is exactly what Obama did in a new conference yesterday. The highest ranking officials in charge of examining such a law have admitted to not reading the law, while continuing to level criticism. This nation has been turned upside down in just 16 months. Obama time and again acts in the best interests of anyone but the United States, whether it be with Isreal and Iran, Russia and Nukes, domestic spending, and now Mexico and immigration. And now to have the Mexican President lecture our Congress is like Mao lecturing us about our treatment of prisoners. Mexico has a much more aggressive policy on immigration. I'm so tired of the doublespeak War is peace, freedom is slavery.
Posted by jrchaard at 1:04 PM
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
1. Elimination of the Missile shield in Eastern Europe - Over the last several years, the US had gained strategic advantage with the development of systems capable of intercepting and destroying nuclear missiles. We aren’t talking about the massive waves of weapons from Russia, but one or more missiles fired from a rogue nation like Iran. Our eastern European allies, who were amongst the remaining staunch allies of the US because of their past and burgeoning democracies, were to receive a missile shield to protect them from missiles launched from rogue nations that are quite close in proximity. Obama, in some strange move to show weakness before Russia, says they won’t deploy the shield.
2. Negotiations with rogue nations – In Obama’s new tone, we have accomplished nothing more than an Iran that has realized that no matter what line we draw, they can step over it without consequence.
3. De-Balling the Military – Following in Clinton’s foot steps, Obama is once again looking at reshaping the militaries stance on homosexuality. I’m not even going to discuss the morality of it, but just as woman are an undue distraction for a fighting force, making man love okay can create all kinds of issues in a barracks. Right now, men and woman live separately. Suppose they shared living quarters. Don’t you think some monkey business will go on, and is that monkey business good for a fighting force. Of course, now that Obama is also considering allowing woman to serve on subs, I guess we will see it both ways.
4. Non-binding Arms Agreements – Because Obama wanted to make sure that we appeared as weak as possible to the whole world, he thought it would be good to enter into an agreement with the Soviets (let’s not fool ourselves here) to reduce our arsenal of nuclear weapons.
5. Declaring Our Strategic Position – What good comes from telling the whole world how many nuclear weapons we have. Our enemies will not be doing the same. Instead of causing other nations to guess and spend lots of money trying to figure things out on their own, we will save them the time and money. It would be like in the 80’s, when the Soviets went bankrupt because of the cost they incurred due to the Strategic Defense Initiative, us telling them that it wasn’t real and they should save their money. There is advantage in stealth.
I suspect that our next move will be to provide maps online of the locations of our entire nuclear arsenal. I mean, Joe Biden ruined the secure bunkers that was built to shelter him in the case of a nuclear strike. Does any of this make any sense. When you look at all the actions of Obama, don’t you ask yourself who is he serving? To what benefit do we gain by his actions? I see none.
Posted by jrchaard at 8:55 AM