You Misunderstood, Mr. President, We’re Trading YOU For a 3-Year Old Orphan

In the absence of a persuasive argument, President Obama has spoken condescendingly once again. This time it was directed to those who are concerned about allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S., especially since last weekend’s terrorist attacks in Paris. (One of the dead terrorists in France, an EU nationalist, and a man in a Serbian refugee camp each had passports with the same details: those of a Syrian loyalist soldier, Ahmad Almohammad, who died a few months ago.[1])

Using his favorite tactic, our President said, “At first they were worried about the press being too tough on them in during debates. Now they’re worried about three-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.” (2)

Mr. Obama, we’re not afraid of three-year old Syrian orphans, quite the contrary. We’re looking to trade you for one of them. You see, with a child of that age, we don’t have to worry about his spending trillions of dollars he doesn’t have. Another benefit is that little one cannot possibly write unconstitutional executive orders. Three-year olds normally don’t harass Christians and conservatives. And when that child tells a lie you’d be proud of, we’ll make sure he faces the consequences of his actions and no news media will deflect for him.

While we’re thinking of it, Syria, if you have a couple extra three-year olds, we’ll take them and you can have our Vice President and the presumptive Democratic nominee, too – and we’ll pay the shipping. We will ensure their servers are secure and that no money from foreign governments is going into their little “529” foundations which would influence their decisions some day.

1 – “Were Syrian refugees involved in the Paris attacks? What we know and don’t know,” by Ishaan Tharoor, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/17/were-syrian-refugees-involved-in-the-paris-attacks-what-we-know-and-dont-know/, 11/17/2015.

2 – “Obama torches GOP on Syrian refugees: ‘Now they are scared of 3-year-old orphans’,” by Nahal Toosi, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/barack-obama-refugees-216007, 11/17/2015.

Which Came First: Obama’s Theme or “Frozen”?

The President was heard singing to himself as he walked to Capitol Hill recently. His words were very similar to the popular song promoting isolation and self-importance, “Frozen.” Which came first? For those of you unfamiliar with song from the movie, here’s a link that can help you decide.

http://www.metrolyrics.com/disneys-frozen-let-it-go-lyrics-idina-menzel.html

The President’s version:

“The dome glows bright on the Capitol tonight,
not a Congress in each wing.
A country of division and it looks like I’m the king.
Non-lib’rals are howling like this swirling storm inside.
Can’t keep them down, Michelle knows I tried.
Don’t let them in, don’t let them see.
Be the good “savior” you always have to be.
Plot, don’t feel, don’t let them know.
Well, now they know!

I’ll veto, I’ll veto!
Do it again and again.
I’ll veto, I’ll veto!
Sign away and slam the pen.
I don’t care what the public’s going to say.
Let the storm rage on.
The law never bothered me anyway.

It’s funny how some power,
makes the voters seem small.
And conscience tried to control me, can’t get to me at all.
It’s time to see what I can do,
to test the Court and break through.
No right, no wrong, no rules for me.
I’m free!

I’ll veto, I’ll veto!
I’m one with the wind and sky.
I’ll veto, I’ll veto!
I get away with lies.
I’m the prez, forever I’ll stay.
Let the storm rage on.

My power flurries through from D.C. to open border.
My soul is spiraling from each executive order
And one thought crystallizes like an icy blast
They’ll never stop me, Constitution’s in the past!

I’ll veto, I’ll veto!
And I’ll rule like Cuba’s Fidel.
I’ll veto, I’ll veto!
The nation goes to hell
Here I stand, always get my way.

Let the storm rage on!
The law never bothered me anyway.

IF Obama Had Been President In…

April, 1789: At the urging of some loyal followers, newly sworn-in President Obama accepts the title of King Barack I, thus prefiguring the actions of the occupant of the White House beginning in 2009. He reverts back to being the President after what happened to King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793.1

August, 1814: While the British stormed Washington D.C., the President and his family were vacationing in the Northwest Territory as he was attending party fund-raisers. In the place of Gilbert Stuart’s portrait of George Washington in the White House, we would marvel at one of King George III today.

November, 1863: There would not have been a Gettysburg Address. No teleprompters yet.

November, 1904: He wins re-election on an anti-violence campaign with the slogan, “Speak softly and ban all sticks.”

May, 1933: The President signs into law the TVA (Texas Voting Act). This law allows any person who is at least 12-years old and immigrating from Mexico and Central America to vote without any identification so as not to expose his undocumented status. By the November 1936 election, the number of votes in a U.S. general election exceeds the official population for the first time. What a turnout!

December, 1941: After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he would have imposed sanctions on all avocadoes and oranges imported from Japan. Today, California’s state debt would be ¥78.6 trillion.3

February, 1951: The President would have issued an executive order negating the recently ratified 22nd Amendment limiting a president to two terms.4 He fondly recalled this action when leaving the White House in January, 2001 after serving thirteen terms.

January, 1961: In his famous inaugural address, the President would have said, “Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what I, your savior, can do for you – and I’ll borrow from China if I have to.”

October, 1962: Upon learning that the Soviets were sending offensive weapons to Cuba, the President would have drawn a line in the sand of Miami’s beaches. Today, our country’s primary languages become Russian and Japanese. The practice of English would be restricted to church buildings.

June, 1972: After discovery of the break-in at the Watergate complex, the President would have claimed that it was motivated by the March 1, 1972 episode of the television series Mannix, entitled “Scapegoat.”5 James McCord would have been put in charge of the investigation. The net result would have been the resignation of the manager of operations at the Watergate complex later that year and conveniently just before the 1972 presidential election.

September, 1983: After the downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, the President asks for forgiveness for whatever the U.S. has done to upset our enemies. He announces an acceleration of his unilateral SDI (Sorrowful Disarmament Implementation) where he planned to reduce the U.S.’s weapons to below World War II levels. (Emboldened by this, Soviet leader Gorbachev challenges the U.S. to “tear down this country” and the voters comply with their election decisions in 2008 and 2012.)

September, 2001: Once the world learned of the tragic events of that September 11, the President immediately goes on a vacation with his family to the Northwest Territory which included attending fund-raisers, proving once again that history repeats itself, if the citizens allow it.

1 – Wikipedia, history of King Louis XVI of France
2 – Wikipedia, history of the Tennessee Valley Authority
3 – or $778 billion, from http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org
4 – http://www.consitutioncenter.org
5 – http://www.thrillingdetective.com/mannix

Of Drivers’ Licenses and Marriage Licenses

“Acting on the authority given to it by the Vatican, the United State Council of Catholic Bishops has announced that, to ensure equality and social justice, any male or female, regardless of age, who demonstrates:

1) the required  knowledge of the rules of the road

2) can steer and reach the pedals,

shall be issued the Catholic Motor Vehicle License which shall be valid in any diocese which accepts it, regardless of state law.  No one may be denied the fundamental right to drive on the basis of age, visual acuity, vehicle preference or emotional orientation.”

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?  Where does a religious institution get the idea it can override a statute that is secular in origin and where the authority to regulate lies with the state?  Definitely a bad case of overstepping one’s bounds.

What  State  Laws  and  Church  Laws  Impact

The state is responsible for governing society’s temporal (worldly) affairs.  While some of its statutes may be initiated by the spiritual inclinations of its authors, secular laws regulate actions solely because of their consequences in this life.

The Church, whose guidance impacts temporal matters, must also do so with the responsibility of the eternal results. Its directives address the worldly conduct of our lives, but the ultimate mission is aimed toward the spiritual outcome, the eternal.

Marriage  Has  Eternal,  Not  Just  Temporal  Aspects

Unlike drivers’ licenses, the institution of marriage was not created by the state.  Marriage is spiritual in origin.  If not, then human relationships (including procreation) can be relegated to the same status of the rest of the animal kingdom as Obamacare implies.

Secular law became involved with marriage in order to provide for orderly inheritance, separation of property in the event of a break-up and to ensure financial support for minor children.  This occurs in those countries where Church law does not possess civil authority in these matters.  While spiritual motives may have been part of legislators’ thought processes, the statutes are solely directed at worldly consequences because that is the limit of civil authority.

In U.S. civil law, a balance of power was established between the branches of government.  Among other things, it determines who may change laws and how it is to be accomplished.  In addition, the Supreme Court can rule that certain parties are not qualified to represent a case questioning a law’s constitutionality.

Marriage is also restricted as to who may change it.  While the Church was given authority on moral “statutes”, this authority does not extend to rewriting the eternal constitution which includes Natural Law.  Therefore, the Church is not qualified to redefine marriage as being something other than being between one man and one woman.  Even more so the state, whose authority is limited to the worldly, is not competent to take on this task because of its eternal consequences.

Summary

This is not to diminish the importance of regulating drivers’ licenses.  The state has a great responsibility because the results of its decisions can be deadly in this life.  And because the state authored this regulation, it is the only entity which can change the qualifications for issuance.

The Church has the duty to protect marriage — an institution with spiritual origins and with deadly consequences beyond this life.  However, because the Church is not its author, she has no power to redefine it.  So, how can any other earthly entity presume to do so?