Every four years, the inauguration of the President sets the tone for the direction in which those in the highest executive office hope to steer the nation. Since that is the case, the American people should be very concerned about the lunacy put on display at the swearing in of Barack Obama from beginning to end.
With the gays going into the theatrical hysterics those of that proclivity are renowned for over the invocation delivered by Rick Warren, one would have hoped for something more theologically profound. However, many have no doubt heard sounder sentiments emanating from four year olds saying grace over crackers and juice.
Billy Graham in his heyday Warren is not. From Warren’s words, one could have easily come away assuming God did not know Obama was Black. Warren said, “...we celebrate a hinge point of history with the inauguration of the first African American president of the United States...We know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.”
These things didn’t even need to be mentioned. For decades now, we have been repeatedly told that it is not the color of skin but rather the content of character that counts.
So then why should we be grateful to have a president whose only characteristic that set him above his peers was his mulatoo pigmentation? Would Warren and the other adherents of the outstretched hand of the Social Gospel been as fawning if the likes of Allan Keyes, Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell had been elected to high office?
Furthermore, one might in the course of a speech rhetorically intonate that “Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven” and not be too far out of line. However, doesn’t it smack of the utmost hubris to tell the Lord in a prayer what we know the inhabitants of Heaven are doing? As mortals not having crossed over yet to the other side, how in the world (since those mentioned are no longer in it), can we have any certain idea about what those on the other side think of a development here we are all a flutter over? read more »
In anticipation of the humiliating defeat of their socialized medicine scheme, Democrats are feverishly working to get their legislation passed by cheating.
Their plan, known as “budget reconciliation,” works as follows: (1) have Senate committees expand Medicaid, cut Medicare, force individuals to buy and businesses to offer insurance, give subsidies to low-income people and tax credits to small businesses, levy new taxes, and do everything else Democrats wanted to do in their health care bill but knew would never pass; (2) lump it all into a budget reconciliation bill; and (3) pass it with 50 votes and no filibuster.
The bill would also contain language to support enactment of a health care overhaul, but because provisions unrelated to the budget cannot legally be included, the Senate parliamentarian will likely strike these from the bill. According to the New York Times, which favors the reconciliation swindle, it is unclear whether two key elements will be allowed in the bill: the requirement that insurance companies accept all candidates and charge the same regardless of condition, and the creation of a government health insurance exchange.
The Times eggs Democrats on to declare that these two provisions, while irrelevant to the budget, “are so intertwined with other reforms that they are [necessary] for other provisions that do affect spending or revenues.”
If that ruse doesn’t work, the Times notes, then the process could “leave the reform package riddled with holes—perhaps providing subsidies to buy insurance on exchanges that do not exist, for example.” In this eventuality, Democrats would pass a second bill, subject to filibuster, that fills in gaps where budget-irrelevant provisions were removed. read more »