Question President Obama's Patriotism

It is politically incorrect to question someone's patriotism.  It seems no matter how bitter political opponents are they will not go there.  Think of recent national elections and when it got heated the offended party would exclaim with indignation, "are you questioning my patriotism?"  The answer always has been something like: "I am not doubting your patriotism, we just disagree on what is best for the country..."  Even when the suspect was Barack Obama, who seems to never miss an opportunity to criticize America, the retort was that we would never question his patriotism, just his ideas or his actions or his motivations.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently seemed to go there, and then when pressed offered a more subtle opinion.  Here's the back-story:  At a private fundraising party in New York City Wednesday night Giuliani is quoted as saying,"I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America.  He doesn't love you. And he doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country."

Not surprisingly this brought a lot of reaction, some supportive, but much shock and amazement too.  So Giuliani then appeared on "Fox & Friends" Thursday to clarify his comments. "Well, first of all, I'm not questioning his patriotism [emphasis added]. He's a patriot, I'm sure," Giuliani said. "What I'm saying is, in his rhetoric I very rarely hear the things that I used to hear Ronald Reagan say, the things that I used to hear Bill Clinton say about how much he loves America. [...] I do hear him criticize America much more often than other American presidents. And when it's not in the context of an overwhelming number of statements about the exceptionalism of America, it sounds like he's more of a critic than he is a supporter."

This lead me to wonder about the real definition of patriotism.  According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary patriotism is love for or devotion to one's country.  Hmmm. If Giuliani is stating that President Obama does not love his country isn't he by definition (literally) saying Obama is unpatriotic?  Yes, that is what Giuliani is saying.

If we wanted to let him off the hook I guess we could say that in his clarifying statement to "Fox and Friends" Giuliani is saying that its Obama's rhetoric that sounds like he doesn't love his country.  This is certainly true about his rhetoric.  When was the last time we actually heard Obama say something even positive about America, other than how much good he has done for it?  Obama's rhetoric does not show evidence of devotion to country.  

I think Mayor Giuliani's original statement really reflects how he feels. He believes that it not just the rhetoric, but that Obama truly does not love his country.  I think there are many politicians who think the same and would not be so clear, but like Giuliani they would then claim they were not questioning Obama's patriotism.

It is a horrible thing to say, but I agree with Mayor Giuliani, that President Obama does not love his country.  It is horrible to think about - that the people of this country elevated to the highest office a person who in words and actions shows he lacks a devotion to his country.  And further, it is a very sad thing to say, but if we are to use the dictionary definition, the President of the United States is unpatriotic.

Really, AG Kane Must Go

When Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane refused to defend the commonwealth's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) I called for her impeachment in a previous blog (Do Your Duty or Resign AG Kane, 7/11/13).  Since that time she has made it eminently clear that she is unqualified for the post. 

As a reminder, the Commonwealth Attorneys Act of 1980 (Ch2, Section 204 (3) reads: It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to uphold and defend the constitutionality of all statutes so as to prevent their suspension or abrogation in the absence of a controlling decision by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Attorney General doesn't get to choose which laws she will defend or obey and which she can take a politically correct position on.  She is not to judge whether the General Assembly passed an unconstitutional law.  In the DOMA case she presumed the court's position before the case has even begun.  Her job, her duty, is to defend her client, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the best of her ability.

Following that unchallenged abrogation of her duty she again has refused to defend a state law.  This time it is a law that makes it easier for gun owners and member groups to sue local municipalities.  Some local municipalities have passed ordinances in defiance of state law that place stricter requirements on gun ownership.  The General Assembly does not give local municipalities this authority and specifically reserves that power to itself.  Some local municipalities have passed these ordinances in defiance of the state law because there has been no mechanism in place to object or overturn them.  There has been no recourse for gun-owners intimidated (the real purpose of the laws) by the local ordinances.

Some cities (of course Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) and several state lawmakers brought a lawsuit against the Commonwealth November 10th, challenging that the law wasn't passed in accordance with parts of the state constitution designed to create transparent, fair legislation (i.e., one subject bills).  Note that the suit does not challenge the purpose or content of the law.  Everyone understands the General Assembly is exercising its rights on gun legislation and that local municipalities are out of bounds when they seek to restrict gun-rights.  AG Kane is obviously hiding behind a procedural issue.

Defending the process by which legislation was passed - which is what she would be called to do in this lawsuit - should be no burden for any ethical and right thinking attorney general.  Lawyers  routinely make arguments in court over procedural matters in cases where they may have doubts about their client's position.  Just like the DOMA case she has taken on the position of judge and is derelict in her duties as Attorney General!

These two derelictions of duty are enough to impeach AG Kane.  However, she gives another great reason: total incompetence.  Kane refused to prosecute Philadelphia lawmakers who took cash (recorded on tape!) from an undercover lobbyist and an ex-traffic court judge who accepted a $2,000 bracelet.  She claimed racism tinged her predecessors' investigation and that there were legal flaws and poor supervision.  Well, a grand jury, dominated by black citizens, have rebuked her on the racism charge and the evidence of the case is unusually damning based on eyewitness accounts, hours of tape recordings and detailed admissions of guilt.  Some observers believe her actions were all motivated by a feud she has with the former state prosecutor and current Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams.  Based on the grand jury's findings he is charging the state legislators in the case.

Further evidence of incompetence: Kane flubbed, and then retracted, two statements about her office's investigation of pornographic emails shared by former and current staffers.  Her review of Governor Corbett's almost 3-year investigation while he was attorney general of pedophile Jerry Sandusky, a retired Penn State assistant football coach, found no evidence that Corbett dragged out the investigation to win the governor's office, as Kane alleged in her campaign.  Then her office settled the last of cases involving eight people with ties to the Turnpike Commission whom Kane accused of corruption. Two months before taking office she had a grand press conference accusing the people of "using the turnpike to line their pockets and to influence elections."  The result - none of those charged went to prison.

The office of Attorney General is no place for an incompetent politician motivated by political correctness and personal agendas.  Pennsylvania deserves an honorable, dedicated to the law, attorney general.  The General Assembly needs to do its duty and impeach AG Kane.

Is the Pope Catholic?

I'm guessing the Papal Conclave is having buyer's remorse right about about now.  Pope Francis continues his habit of making what could be kindly characterized as progressive statements or perhaps more harshly described as heresy.  The latest: in delivering an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences the pontiff appeared to endorse evolution and disputed that God was omnipotent or even divine.

While Pope Francis has been making secularists and religious liberals happy with his progressive ideas the conservatives have to be shocked.  Just two weeks ago a committee of bishops selected and convened by Pope Francis released a draft report that urged the church to recognize "positive aspects of civil unions and cohabitation."  The church should with regards to homosexuals be "accepting and valuing their sexual orientation." This led to a revolt among conservative bishops.  The English version of the policy statement was then revised to express a more traditional view.

Before I get into the latest bombshells I should address the issue some of my Catholic friends are undoubtedly thinking at this point: Why don't you mind your own (Baptist) business?!  Well, you know I have already committed to discussing in this blog the two biggest conversational no-no's -religion and politics - and I am going to jolly-well continue to do so. And this latest Francis-ism is meaningful news for anyone concerned about Christian orthodoxy. 

There are many things I disagree with in Roman Catholicism.  I am an independent Baptist and I have arrived at my beliefs not by birth or by accident, but by faith and searching the scriptures. (And I acknowledge many Catholics and Protestants would claim the same thing.) I am also a student of church history and an observer of society.  I have respected the Catholic church and its leaders where it has resisted popular movements in society that it viewed were contrary to scripture.  The sanctity of life is a good example.  I have supported and gladly worked with Catholic friends in the Pro-Life movement. (I will also admit there are many times that Protestant leaders - yes, even ones that claim to Baptist - greatly disappoint me in their apparent rejection of biblical truth.) 

Now the pope comes out with some statements that take serious believers' breath away.  So we don't lose our breath and faint let's take them one by one.  First Pope Francis said, "When we read about creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so."  Well, it is "not so" that God is a magician and uses a magic wand.  Pope Francis got that right. Let's point out God uses His words.  He spoke the world into existence.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light." (Gen. 1:3)

For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast. (Ps. 33:9)

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. (Heb. 11:3)

What is most worrisome about the the Pope's statement is the "...able to do everything. But that is not so."  Oh, I hope this got lost in translation!  God most certainly can do everything. Otherwise He would not be God.  This is, of course, described by theologians as omnipotence.  God's Word tells us:

But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”(Matt. 19:26)

“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh. Is anything too hard for me? (Jer. 32:27)

Pope Francis continued his explanation on creation..."God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life."  Again, I would have to agree with part of his statement.  God brought everything to life. 

Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. (Is 40:28)

But Pope Francis' statement that God is not divine - surely this must be misreported, or mistranslated?  Or it has to be named as heresy. Does it not?  Catholic doctrine surely teaches the divinity of God, and without a recognition that God is divine we have no religion.

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.  (Col. 1:16)

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, (2 Peter 1:3)

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. (Romans 1:20).

So back to why should a baptist care about Pope Francis' statements? I care when society disregards God's truth. Is it expected that people will reject Truth? Yes, but not by the fellow who is recognized as the leader of the Roman Catholic church!

It seems that fundamental principles are now daily rejected.  Truths are up for debate or they change with the fashions. Obvious good is now considered evil, and evil good.  When more truths - such as God's divinity and omnipotence - are rejected it is to our peril.