About Me

Name: Matt Veasey
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Obama Fires Opening Shots in Marriage War

The overt radicalism of President Barack Obama was on full display once again this past weekend as he gave a speech to a group known as the 'Human Rights Campaign', the largest gay rights group in the nation. In this speech, Obama laid out his thought process and his intended direction for a war on the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

In his speech, Obama fired his administration's opening shots in what promises to be a harrowing war on the God-given institution of Marriage that the Bible clearly states is between man and woman, husband and wife. The President presumptuously stated that there were still "hearts to open" on gay issues, and told the organization that he was "here with you in that fight."

Once again, Obama is fundamentally wrong on the key underlying point here. The fact is that there are no closed "hearts" that need to be opened. There are quite simply a huge number of Americans who disagree with him on many of the issues surrounding "rights" for gay people, particularly regarding Marriage. It is not we who are lacking in 'heart', but Obama and those like him who are lacking in moral understanding, vision, and courage.

Obama laid out his thinking as he prepares his ultra-liberal army for an eventual all-out assault on the Marriage sacrament when he urged Congress to repeal the 'Defense of Marriage Act' and stated that gay couples should have the same rights as "any married couple in this country."

What Obama and all liberals ignore is that Marriage is not some state-sponsored civil union between two people, but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. In the Bible, Matthew's gospel states that "..he who made them from the beginning made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

Support for homosexual marriage ignores the fundamental reality that the practice is intrinsically disordered. It is an abuse of our human nature. For one man to lay down with another man and insert his genitalia into the other males anus is unnatural any way you describe it. Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder. It was removed then only due to the political pressures of the day, not due to any change in medical evidence.

This does not mean that we should discriminate against homosexuals or treat them as anything less than the image of God in which they have been created as human beings. They have fundamental human and spiritual rights that should be defended. But a defense based on their humanity does not extend to all areas of their nature and conduct.

To further clarify for the ultra-liberal and uber-sensitive: being gay is not being un-American, but supporting gay marriage is going against traditional American norms and values; being gay is not un-Godly, but yielding your life to a 'gay' lifestyle is going against the will of God for humanity; being gay is not inhuman, but practicing gay sex is immoral and irresponsible on a human level.

President Barack Obama has taken up the banner of the homosexual marriage cause fully. He has clearly stated that he will make every effort to force America into an immoral situation where the nation allows anyone to marry anyone else regardless of sexuality. It is hard to see how any thinking Christian can support a politician who continuously and vigorously supports attacks on Marriage and the murder of babies.

Open ideological war is breaking out in American society. This is not an overstatement or exaggeration based on strong religious beliefs, but simply the reality of the current state of affairs in our nation. Which side will ultimately win out? Obama's 'anything goes' side, or traditional Judeo-Christian American values? And which side are you on?
 
Find Matt Veasey publishing regularly at:  www.mattveasey.com
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Nobel Nobility

It was announced today that President Barack Obama of the United States had won the once-prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was awarded the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

There was no accompanying 'rimshot' sound effect to the announcement. This was not a joke.

Obama was nominated for the prize within a couple of weeks of being sworn in to the office of the Presidency. A couple of weeks during which he earned the nomination by, uh, doing...er, uh. Well, he made a couple speeches, right? Uh, he, er, uh said some pretty good things, I think?

A year ago, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Martii Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland who after leaving that office had established the Crisis Management Initiative in 2000, a non-governmental group that helps mediate and resolve crisis around the world. Ahtisaari had worked for decades in places like Kosova, Iraq, and Indonesia to promote peace.

Barack Obama, in just a couple of weeks in office, made some "extraordinary efforts" that got him the same award. What it took Ahtisaari and all other Nobel laureates a lifetime to achieve, Obama managed through those extraordinary efforts to achieve in mere weeks.

For his part, Obama on one hand seemed to understand that his nomination was out of place saying "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." However, Obama went on to say that he would accept the prize anyway as a "call to action" and "as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Come on, folks, this is an organization that honored Al Gore with a straight face. This was nothing more than a purely political endorsement by a European organization that has found a sympathetic figure it hopes will further bolster the EU's efforts to undermine American strength and drive us closer to a new Socialist world order.

CBS news chief Bob Schieffer, a liberal spokesperson for a liberal news organization, believes this was purely a slap at the Bush administration's aggressive policies in the world, and suggested that the award may have been a prize "for winning the election." The conservative National Review wondered if Obama would next be honored with Major League Baseball's prestigious Cy Young Award as it's top pitcher.

Alfred Nobel himself is probably rolling over in his grave right now. In his will, Nobel stipulated that the prize should be awarded to someone "who shall have done the most or the best work" on behalf of peace. Man, that Obama sure is something, getting all that work done in just a couple of weeks in order to be nominated.

To use boxing terms, if giving Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize for what is at best a controversial and at worst a fraudulent global warming presence was the 'left hook' then giving Barack Obama the award is the 'right cross' and the final blow that knocks the Nobel Prize out of the credibility fight.

Barack Obama noted when he took office that America is "at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred" and yet he has done nothing since taking power to keep America safe from these Islamist terrorists. In fact, his words and actions have undermined that process and made America even more vulnerable today, and set up the processes by which we will become increasingly more vulnerable going forward.

Obama stated in his inaugural that "earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." What he failed to state was that there are no longer nations with the moral backbone to stand up for their convictions as allies for true freedom, only cowards who surrender to maintain peace, hiding behind the apron strings of socialism as they await the onrush from the forces of Islamism.

The legacy that Barack Obama is forging here at home is certainly not one of peace among Americans. It is one of being a divider, not the uniter that he said he would become. He is a partisan leader of a partisan political party in a partisan environment in which roughly half of the people of his own country do not support him or his policies.

Be it at home in the United States among fellow Americans, or within our own hemisphere in dealing with situations in places like Cuba and Venezuela, Obama has done little or nothing to forge peace. In the Middle East with our friends in Israel, or with or Islamist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has done little or nothing to forge peace. In relations with major powers such as Russia and China, Obama has done little or nothing to forge peace.

Webster's defines 'noble' as "possessing outstanding qualities" and "possessing, characterized by, or arising from the superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals." Combined with the Gore award, today's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama can only leave us with the notion that the award is now purely political, and the Nobel organization has surrendered all nobility.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Lie!

Congressman Joe Wilson had enough of the lies, and could no longer contain himself. The Republican from South Carolina had sat patiently in his chair while trying to endure 45 minutes of President Barack Obama droning on about extending his Socialist vision of America into the health care industry.

But then Obama told one lie too many for Wilson during last night's nationally televised attempt at indoctrination and bullying. The President let slip that his proposed government option would not cover illegal aliens. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back for the Congressman.

"You Lie!" shouted Wilson.

If you were watching on television, you heard it plain as day. The uproar in response was immediate and boisterous as various members of Congress either gasped in astonishment, hollered their disapproval, or mildly cheered the outburst. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, seated immediately over Obama's left shoulder, shot an icy stare in Wilson's direction.

Obama was also stunned by the outburst and momentarily glanced away from his teleprompter, causing him to stumble and mumble a weak "That's not true" as a response. Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats, particularly the ultra-liberals on the far left who are pushing the President further and further towards that Socialist disaster, Joe Wilson was the only one actually speaking truth.

On the issue that caused Wilson's outburst, Obama has repeatedly rebuffed calls for individuals to provide proof of citizenship in order to receive health care under the proposed government option. This will undoubtedly result in illegals receiving such care, and increased numbers of them as Mexicans and others stream across our southern borders to receive better medical care here at no cost.

Well, it's at no cost to the illegal aliens. It will, however, cost every single taxpaying American as money is sucked from our paychecks in order to provide health care for people who are not even citizens of our country.

The funding for this project is another of it's controversial elements, and was addressed last night with another of Obama's lies. He spoke of increasing costs by $900 billion over the next decade, and compared that amount to the same amount to fund the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His point was that it is affordable if we choose to take care of uninsured sick Americans instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy or going to war.

As usual, Obama was lying. The $900 billion dollars over the next decade figure comes from adding up to 18 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. But that is just the rock bottom basic cost. Everyone involved knows that costs will rise and that the plan would end up costing at least hundreds of billions of more dollars. And then there is the fact that the plan doesn't go away after a decade.

Harsh to say that Obama is lying? Not at all. I am going to give Barack Obama credit where liberals were unwilling to give George W. Bush credit by saying that Obama is smart. Fact is, so was Bush, but you'll never convince most libs of that notion. But they would definitely agree with me that Obama is both intelligent and informed.

To even contemplate that Obama does not know all of the facts involving his health plan would be ludicrous. So when he tells you that it will be affordable, that there will be no increase in the federal deficit, that illegal aliens won't be covered, and that abortions won't be covered he is quite simply not telling the truth as he knows it to be. The word we all use for such a person is 'liar' in other instances, and it applies here as well, whether you like the sound of Obama being called one or not.

As to the controversial abortion topic, for instance, the President claims that the language of his health bill is 'neutral' on the issue. Fair enough, but fact is that most Americans have already spoken their minds that they do not want a publicly funded abortion option as part of any taxpayer funded plan. So Republicans tried to insert amendments that would specifically prohibit the plan from covering abortions. The amendments were voted down by the Democrats. So much for the President' bill being 'neutral' on abortion. What is to keep it from covering the procedure, Mr. President?

Mr. President, it might make Nance Pelosi cringe, your fellow Democrats bellow, and even moderate Republicans feign public indignance, but the facts are the facts and the American public deserves more than you and your administration are giving us on issue after issue. A 'Change' to Socialism was not what they voted for last November. I can't blame Joe Wilson for his outburst because frankly, Mr. President, he simply was telling the frustrating truth when he shouted "You Lie!"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Islamism Challenging Obama

Originally posted as part of the ongoing 'Islamism Series' from 11.08.08 at www.mattveasey.com
 
 
Welcome to the real world, President-elect Obama.
 
It was one thing to use speaking eloquence and the Chicago political machine to rise to power. It was one thing to win a U.S. Senate seat, and then use dissatisfaction with the status quo to rise to the Presidency. But that inexperience is about to catch up to you. A few years in the Senate, most of it spent running for President, is simply not enough experience to be the leader of the free world. We in America and the entire Western world have to hope that the man is a fast learner.
 
Just a day after Barack Obama received his first official security briefing from the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, the New York Sun reports that Obama and the American public will soon receive a video address from none other than Osama bin Laden himself. Fanatical hate preacher Omar Bakri has led chats in extremist Arabic chat rooms announcing that the new video will likely come when Obama names his cabinet, and will warn Obama that "We will fight him if he fights against Islam." A key Iraqi al Qaeda propagandist, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, made an internet speech in which he told Obama that "it's better for you and us to withdraw your forces and return to your homes."
 
Obama has pledged that he will redeploy American resources in the Middle East in order to go after bin Laden in the Afghani tribal regions where the al Qaeda leader is believed to be hiding. However, the CIA apparently has far greater intel on the whereabouts of al Qaeda's #2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, which might lead to addressing efforts to go after him first. President George W. Bush will meet directly with Obama on Monday in a further effort to update him on homeland defense, among other issues. In a recent speech in front of various White House staffers, President Bush stated that the terrorist threat is a main reason that they “all of must ensure that the next president and his team can hit the ground running.”
 
During the campaign, Obama pledged to give commanders a new mission in Iraq: to successfully end the war with a 'responsible and phased' withdrawal of troops. Dissatisfaction with the prosecution of the war was a key component to Obama's election victory. It was also yet another sign that the American press and public simply do not have the fortitude at this stage to win this vital struggle between civilizations and ideologies. The Obama camp and many of its followers simply do not believe the magnitude of the threat that Islamofascism poses to Israel, the United States, and the world. Either that, or they know and simply do not care, choosing instead to focus on other issues for now, and deciding to deal with military issues as they develop in the future. In other words, they are choosing to once again put a band aid on a longterm serious problem, rather than address it now and completely.
 
This is a recipe for disaster that will likely play out now in an Obama administration. Islamofascists will view any U.S. withdrawal as an opportunity, and a victory. They will rightly say that they again simply waited us out, that they knew we could never defeat them long term, that we simply didn't have the stomach for it. They will consolidate their power in the Middle East once we leave, including increased pressure on Israel, igniting even worse conditions than exist today.
 
The Veep-elect, Joe Biden, stated in the run-up to the election "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama...we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy...he's gonna need help...because it's not gonna be apparent initially that we're right." It's a shame that those of us who know this will be the outcome have not been able to convince enough of America, but apparently it will take another 9/11, or worse, to awaken that sleeping giant fully.
 
I have to hope that the President-elect is finally exposed to the reality of the situation in the coming days, weeks, and months, and changes his tune on what needs to be done. Otherwise, the Islamofascists will seriously challenge a President Obama, judging correctly that he will do little or nothing to stop them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm Betting on America

Originally posted on 10.11.2008 at www.mattveasey.com
 
 
 
The stock market is actually a very simple idea to wrap your arms around at it's most basic levels. A company, let's pick an old standard that everyone knows like Coca Cola, wants to make some more money. It wants to make more money for many reasons: it can pay its employees better salaries and offer them better benefits, thus attracting better workers; it can build bigger and better facilities, and purchase newer vehicles to transport their products to market more efficiently; it can research and produce new products that will get them new customers; it can purchase another company that has a product or service which Coke feels would be compatible with their own; it can allow them to advertise more on TV, radio, the internet and thus sell more of their products.
 
All of these efforts by Coke are efforts to make their company better, stronger, healthier. So the powers at Coke decide to 'go public' by offering 'shares' of Coke on the stock market. This means that you can purchase an ownership stake in Coke by purchasing a 'share' at a certain price. A number of people decide to buy these shares, basically giving Coke their money in order to do those things they want to make their company stronger.
 
The market determines what that price will be, so for instance initially Coke might offer shares in their company at $15 each. If you believe that Coca Cola is run well by good people, that their company is healthy, and that it is going to thrive and even maybe expand strongly in the future then you may buy a share. By doing so, you are basically betting on Coke, and you are putting up $15 of your real money in order to get a share. If you buy 10 shares, you have $150 invested in Coke.
 
Now let's say they do well over the next few years, and as they do well the price of their stock goes up. It does so because more and more people believe in Coke like you did, so the people at Coke can raise the price of their shares because people are willing to pay that higher price. Say a couple years later the price of Coke shares is now $25 per share. Those 10 shares that you put $150 into two years ago? Well now they are worth $25 per share, or $250 total, and you have made yourself $100 on your investment.
 
On the flip side, if Coke did poorly, if their company assets were mismanaged or stolen, or if their products were no longer as valuable to the public (in other words, fewer people liked to drink Coca Cola), then the price they could get for thier shares would go down. Say they went down to $5 per share, then your 10 would now be worth just $50. You would have lost 100 on your investment in Coke. That is how the stock market works at its most basic level.
 
What you hear on TV every day as the 'Dow Jones Industrical Average' or simply as 'The Dow' going 'up' or 'down' is basically the world betting on America. You get in on this action, get to 'play the market', by purchasing those shares which are sold by that thing which we call the 'stock market'. Not unlike going to the grocery market for your food, you go to the stock market to purchase your stock shares.
 
The main place that Americans do their purchasing is at the U.S. Stock Exchange, located on Wall Street in New York City, and thus you hear the market sometimes simply referred to as 'Wall Street'. The Dow is the total value of 30 selected stocks that key investors have determined make up a reflection of a wide range of important companies in America.
 
For instance if Coke is worth $15 per share, and McDonalds is worth $10 per share, and Home Depot is worth $16 per share, and Comcast is worth $20 per share, you would add them together and get a total of 61 'points', or the dollar value of all the 'costs per share' of the companies in our little example index. If tomorrow those share values go up, and the new total is 81 points, our index of those four companies has gone up by 20 points. So it goes with The Dow, only in their case it is with the prices of those 30 American companies that I mentioned make it up.
 
So in other words, when The Dow is going up, people are betting that America is healthy and strong. They believe that, in general, the future looks bright for business here, which means that products will get better, that their will be good jobs available, that companies will succeed. When The Dow is down, people believe that America is not going to succeed, that companies will fail. When too many people begin to dislike too many things about too many companies, they may decide that they don't like having their money in shares of stock any more, and so they pull thier money out of the stock market and do something else with it. This makes the shares in the market drop, because they are not as valuable if many people no longer want them, and so the market goes 'down'.
 
If enough people pull enough money out in a short enough period of time, as has been happening recently, we have a market 'downturn' or even a 'crash'. A 'crash' is generally defined as when the overall stock market loses 20% or more of its value in a very short period of time. They happen usually about once every couple decades or so, and are usually seen as being a 'correction' in the market. This means that people have found that prices on company shares were a bit too high and stopped buying them until they got to levels that people were again comfortable with.
 
What always happens is that a time comes when people look at the prices of stock in companies and say to themselves "hey, that stock is getting pretty low, it's really worth more than that" and they jump back in to the market. More and more people do this, and the market goes back up aqain. The very bottom line here is that buying stocks in good American companies is like betting on America to succeed.
 
Do you believe that the United States of America is going to fail?
 
Really, ultimately, completely fail?
 
Or do you believe that 5, 10, 50 years from now there is going to be a United States of America that is still a democracy, that still is a world leader, that still bases its economy on capitalism and the value of rewarding hard work by both individuals and business? If so, then you should do exactly what I am doing by keeping the shares of my retirement plan invested in ways that reflect the market.
 
Despite all the doom and gloom seen on television broadcasts today, I am betting on America. Despite a few hiccups along the way, she has never, ever let me down in the long term of my 47 year life. She might struggle for a bit over the next few months, even the next few years, while some details are worked out and some badly run companies are weeded out. We might even suffer a bit more should Barack Obama get elected and Democrats control Congress, thus raising our taxes and our spending and worsening our situation in those next few years.
 
In the long run of the next decade or so, she will be back strong, of that I have no doubts. The bottom line for me is that I'm staying in the market, I'm betting on America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »