I don’t respect the president or his office, and neither should you

untitled (48)

Of all the flaccid refrains constantly shrieked by the hordes of Statist sycophants, the worst is probably this:

“Even if you don’t respect Obama, you should still respect the office!”

Respect ‘the office,’ they say.

Definition of respect: to hold in esteem or honor.

Synonyms for respect: deference, awe, reverence.

As you might imagine, I was recently reacquainted with the rather sickening idea that I have a duty to show reverence for a political office, when I wrote a post last week where I merely called the president a liar. Indeed, anytime you criticize the president with an intent more serious than playfully teasing him for picking the wrong team in his March Madness bracket — anytime you attack authority, particularly presidential authority, particularly THIS president’s authority — the ‘respect the office’ propagators will come streaming in, fingers-a-wagging and heads-a-shaking.

‘Respect the office,’ they gush. Noticeably, the folks most concerned with respecting Obama’s office weren’t to be heard from during that certain eight year period where Bush was daily cut down as anything from Hitler Incarnate

ringobushitler17 (2)

to a barely literate monkey


to the subject for a slapstick Comedy Central sitcom.

untitled (47)

But the hypocrisy of Obama’s Minions should be put aside for the moment.

If I only engaged their points when they demonstrate a willingness to apply their position evenly and equally, I’d never be able to engage them at all (which would probably be best for all involved).  We know that the left wingers who ask that we respect the office have a tendency to define the phrase differently depending on its occupant. If the man in the office is Obama, ‘respect’ means ‘total and absolute acceptance of everything done and said by anyone in the Executive Branch.’ Whereas, when the man in the office is a Republican, ‘respect’ means ‘call him a Hitler monkey and burn him in effigy while chanting voodoo curses against him and his progeny.’

The contrast between the two might be nuanced, but you can detect it if you look closely.

In any case, Republican or Democrat, Hitler or Secular Messiah, is there anything to be said for this ‘respect the office’ notion?

I don’t think so, but then, the whole concept confuses me. Honestly, I don’t even know what ‘respecting the office’ means in the context of our constitutional republic, where our politicians are supposed to be public servants, and where they don’t do anything to earn the office other than spend a lot of money on political ads.

I know what it means to honor and respect your parents just because they’re your parents. I know what it means for a child to respect his teacher just because she’s his teacher. I know, and have written about, what it means for a woman to respect her husband because he is her husband, and a man to respect his wife because she is his wife. But, as far as I can tell, the responsibility to respect the ‘office’ of a politician falls squarely on the shoulders of the politician who holds it. And, even in that case, his job isn’t to respect the office, so much as to live up to the expectations of the voters who awarded him the position — and, far more important than the feelings of the voters, to uphold the law.

The ‘office’ is, after all, just an office. It isn’t some detached entity that exists on its own somewhere in the dimensions of time and space, and will live on even without being physically occupied.

The office is also not a divine birthright. This is not a monarchy. They are not royalty. Why should I respect the ‘office of the presidency’ anymore than I should respect the office of a plumber or a secretary? If a plumber or a secretary lied all the time, I’d call them a liar.

It’s true that we shouldn’t hurl racial slurs and dishonest ad hominem insults at the president — regardless of who he is — but that isn’t because of his office. That’s just because he’s a person, and we shouldn’t do that to any person. It’s not the dignity of any office that we have a responsibility to uphold, but the dignity of a human being.

Coincidentally, the dignity of the human being is the precise sort of dignity that this president desecrates when he promotes infanticide and wishes ‘God’s blessings’ on a room full of wealthy abortionists, or when he brutally murders hundreds of women and children via drone attacks and then brags that he’s “really good at killing people,” or when he arms terrorists and drug cartels without a thought as to the innocent lives that will be lost as a result.

It’s a sad state of affairs, indeed. We’ve reached a point where a wide swath of the country finds itself more concerned with respect for a political office than for life itself.

Of course, I’m sure there are some people who vehemently disagree with Obama, yet would sing in the ‘respect the office’ choir, and would consistently apply the principle to all presidents, regardless of affiliation. I respect that. I actually respect it. I  respect it because I honor it, and I honor it because it is a conviction born of integrity and pure intention. A politician’s job, on the other hand, is born of mere necessity, and I feel indifference towards it, until I’m given a reason to feel disgust or admiration (usually it’s the former, obviously).

These people aren’t necessarily in the Statist horde I mentioned above, but they’ve unwittingly aligned themselves with that mob, and so I’d urge them to reconsider.

The Bible tells us to submit to governing authority, and that such authority comes from God (Romans 13). But nobody in America thinks that this requires us to lie before the Powers that Be like dogs, and follow them blindly into our own slavery. If they did interpret that passage in that way, I imagine they’d already have returned to the British Motherland and said ‘sorry, my bad,’ over that whole unfortunate Revolution misunderstanding.

Besides, here in America, the governing authority is the Constitution. The Constitution — a set of laws, rooted in respect for life and liberty, planted in the soil of Natural Law and watered, as Jefferson said, with the blood of tyrants. The Constitution is our authority. The Constitution is the law. In this nation, the law does not rest with one man, or any collection of men.

In this nation, we prostrate ourselves to no one, other than the Lord.

Let our president bow to royalty if he so desires, but, as free people, that is not our warrant.


Respecting the office, when considered by someone other than a progressive hypocrite, seems well and fine. But I’m afraid that, in application, it makes it difficult for us to hold for our politicians that one feeling that the preservation of Liberty surely requires: skepticism.

Here in the United States, where the power allegedly resides with the people, the one thing that a political office automatically earns from its constituents is a healthy apprehension. The one thing, above everything, that we MUST do with political authority is question it. On this point, you really can’t have your American Pie and eat it too. It’s one or the other. Either our duty as watchful citizens is to doubt our politicians and their offices, or it is to respect them. One protects liberty, the other destroys it.

For a man who respects his wife, or a woman who respects her husband, or a child who respects his mother, it is understood that their apprehensions should be tamed by their respect for the other — respect that isn’t earned, but owed. The loving husband and the dutiful child give their wives and their parents, respectively, the benefit of the doubt.

A citizen, on the other hand, unless he or she is a total fool, knows that politicians should be given the benefit of the doubt about as often as it’s given to sex offenders or kleptomaniacs (especially considering the fact that our presidents have sometimes fallen under all three categories, *cough* Bill Clinton).

There’s a logistical problem with respecting the office, too. Namely, the Office of the Presidency as prescribed in the constitution is one thing, while the Office of the Presidency as currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is quite another. If I was at all inclined to respect the office, I could only consider respecting the former, as the former has Constitutional authority, and the Constitution is the law, and a just and righteous law is the Providence of God. But I run into the technical difficult that the former no longer exists, and hasn’t, arguably, since the conclusion of the Civil War.

The Office of the Presidency now possesses powers that stretch far beyond anything ever lawfully granted it, and it wields an authority that has accumulated over the decades through the illegal conquests of power hungry politicians.

When you respect the Office of the Presidency, you are either respecting the president himself, or you’re respecting this bloated perversion of a political station, one that has been used to murder and oppress.

Respect? If anything, the office should be hated. Hated until some respectable person is elected by respectable voters to convert the monstrosity back to the limited, yet important, post that our Founders established.

For now, don’t worry about respecting any office.

If you have to worry about something, worry about the federal agents in Nevada surrounding a cattle ranch and arresting protestors because his cows supposedly inconvenienced a few endangered turtles.

Worry about the bureaucrats who kidnapped a child in Massachusetts because her parents disagreed with a psychiatric diagnosis.

Worry about the IRS official who targeted Obama’s political opponents, or the Attorney General who perjured himself in front of Congress.

Worry about our liberties. Respect that. Respect our liberty. The politicians don’t need your respect, and they haven’t earned it.


Find me on Facebook.

And Twitter.











This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

255 Responses to I don’t respect the president or his office, and neither should you

  1. sara r. says:

    I think that you make a lot of good points regarding Christians and how the the Bible tells us to act, but you forget that Jesus did not involve himself in the politics of his day. He deliberately supported only God’s kingdom and advised his followers to do the same. I don’t read any of the apostles or first century Christians complaining about the Emperor. They focused on the teachings of Jesus and his guidance during the first century.

    • Cindy Scott says:

      Read this quick study and you may see differently.http://www.gospelway.com/topics/christian_life/civil_government.php

      • gle1244 says:

        Ummm, nope. I read it and I don’t feel differently because I understood the original point of the article you comment on Cindy.

        • Cindy scott says:

          I see it like this: how ARE we to spread the gospel and do the work of Jesus in a diametrically opposed political environment. We already are being made to feel like criminals for teaching absolute truths of the Bible because it may ” offend” someone. It’s been taken out of schools and the public square. It’s all related to politics. Interwoven.

        • Tony says:

          Cindy, you’re supposed to continue following the teachings of Jesus regardless of how much you are attacked for it. In fact, he told his disciples that they would be attacked for continuing to spread the good word, many of them died spreading the word.

          Luckily, you most likely won’t have to die following in his footsteps, but you may be targeted and labeled. It is one of the hardships of being Christian. Keep faith however, you know you’re doing good if evil people get mad at you.

      • BlessedWife says:

        If you look closely Cindy the ones who rebuked leaders rebuked LEADERS – not the laws… They didn’t get involved in man-made rules – for we are purchased and transferred into the kingdom of our Lord when we put him on in the water of baptism… we become pilgrims in this land… We obey those laws which do not conflict with God – but we don’t try to make man-made laws righteous – our commission is to go make disciples baptizing them in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit! Imitate Paul as he imitated Christ – Paul didn’t try to change the unrighteous laws…and neither did Christ!

        • Cindy scott says:

          Hmmm…trying to make sense of this. We pray for righteous leaders in America so we can do the Lord’s will more effectively. We have people like Matt who I believe choose to serve The Lord by influencing public opinion and thought. We are definitely in the business of changing minds and hearts as Christians which will end up swaying votes at the polls. I know God is a sovereign God and he can subvert evil. One of my favorite verses is Joseph telling his brothers ” what you intended for evil God intended for good.” I pray that with Obama being allowed to lead God is working to embolden the righteous. Lukewarm church has got to boil and not be scared away from political issues and debates. IMHO

    • Anastasia Remmes says:

      Hum…..I guess that the Abolitionist stayed out of politics too. Did not God call us to stand up for those that have no voice? Did Dietrich Bonhoeffer stay out of politics as he watched millions of people slaughtered for the sake of the Third Reich. Where in the Bible does it say that? Jesus said “Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s but give to God what is God’s” In His image that we are created in, we stand up for others. Read Isaiah 58, actually, read the whole Bible.

    • Curt says:

      Just two short references to, as you say Jesus, not giving time, or attention outside of God’s Kingdom. One is where He alludes to King Herod as, “…that fox.” (which was by no means just a “political slur”). Or, His instruction to disciples to got the the market, and buy a fish that would have a coin in its mouth…so they could pay taxes. Or, to expand a bit, what about Paul utilizing his Roman citizenship to his advantage? Just read a little deeper dear sister in Christ.

      • Cindy Scott says:

        Exactly Curt, politics isn’t our focus but it’s all related, honor authority as it’s a necessary thing or we would be like a Wild West, but judgement will come when we reap what we sew. Sew support for men with evil agendas, guess what? Godless leader for a godless people. That is why Christian voices must be heard if we are to be salt and preserve this land. Think Sodam and Gomorrah.

    • Bill says:

      Sara, I know you asked for 1st century Christians, but allow first a couple of prophets: Spoken via Elijah to a king and queen: “And you shall say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD, “Have you killed and also taken possession?’ And you shall say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD: “In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick your own blood.”‘ (1 Kings 21:19). “Dogs will eat Jezebel by the wall of Jezreel” (1 Kings 21:23).

      Spoken to a king via Amos: “I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.” (Amos 7:9); and, to a (so-called) priest: “Your wife shall be a prostitute in the city, and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword”.

      One of the main jobs of God’s prophets throughout the Bible was to correct and warn corrupt political and religious leaders, as Nathan to David, “You are the man!”

      Now first century: John the Baptist to Herod Antipas, the Tetrach (governor) of Galilee and Perea: “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matthew 14:4). Jesus: “Render to Caesar the things that a Ceasar’s, and to God the things that are God’s (i.e., Caesar is not God, Matthew 22:21). Peter (and John) to the highest religious authorities: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge…(Acts 4:19). “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Apostles in prayer: “The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ” (Acts 4:26).

      The Revelation to John (probably John the Apostle) is a warning to human governments and religious systems that they will be judged and brought down. Human governments should humble themselves before almighty God. “For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns” (Revelation 19:6, cf. 19:17-19).

  2. sage_brush says:

    Respect? I really believe that Obama is part of God’s judgment on this country. It doesn’t really matter what we think – it only matters what God thinks.

    1 Timothy 2:1-3

    2 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

    2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

    3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

    Proverbs 21:1
    The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will.

    • Cindy Scott says:

      Beautiful scripture. God is in control, but did you stop and think we may be put to the test to see what the people of America will do when faced with wicked men in leadership. Will we repent and turn back. This is an interesting study of Christian obedience to government. http://www.gospelway.com/topics/christian_life/civil_government.php

      • sage_brush says:

        Hi Cindy,

        I agree that if this country repents, (that’s a big IF) and turns to Jesus Christ from top to bottom as happened in Ninevah after Jonah preached, there will be restoration. But frankly, since the United States does not feature in prophecy, it looks more and more as though it will slowly (with a few sputtering attempts to resist) be absorbed into the New World Order.

        We already have wicked men in leadership. Very wicked men – and women. It is a sobering fact that evangelicals voted in large numbers for Obama in the past two election cycles. (not counting wholesale vote fraud )We are living in the last church age, which Christ describes as being “lukewarm,” to the point that He spews it out of His mouth. That does not sound like a revival to me.


        • Cindy scott says:

          I agree the biggest problem in American churches is lukewarmness. Not being the set apart city on a hill. I pray with help of bloggers like Matt we can see people rally around Christian values again.

      • very GOOD response.. afforded me much thought… cindy…….

        • Cindy scott says:

          Thanks, Jean, I admit it is a sticky issue and I have been studying and praying. I don’t want to do anything against The Lord.

    • Sage… you are correct. I really appreciate Matt’s thoughts in general, but I think the logic here is unbiblical and inconsistent (I say this with great respect to Matt’s thinking and writing). If you read through Peter’s epistles, he actually talks in progression about women submitting to men, younger folks to elders, and–at the same time–he brings in the conversation concerning being subject to every human institution that’s over us. That doesn’t mean we “blindly” follow them. It does mean that we revere and respect them, that we obey them where it doesn’t go against our conscience, and–where they are “murderous” (I would agree with Matt that they often are)–we obey God rather than men, obviously. By the way, I’m not an Obama fan. But I wouldn’t publicly go watch the documentary against him. It was a personal decision, but it was founded on my deep belief in Peter’s writings and Romans 13. Matt, you said you would urge us to reconsider… I would urge you to do the same in this topic. Even David, God’s sovereignly appointed leader over Judah, didn’t dare lay a hand on Saul, “God’s anointed”, when given the chance.

      I understand the frustration behind this article, and I think we’d all agree in those points. But, I can’t agree with the conclusions Matt has come to. It seems more American than biblical.


      • sage_brush says:

        Thank you Adam,

        I was not disagreeing with Matt, but rather attempting to point out that with a spiritually rebellious and unrepentant electorate – it makes no difference who our “king” is. Sin is sin, and it always brings judgment. If we believe that God is sovereign, as our songs claim Him to be – then we have the king we deserve. For many decades now, professing Christians have been surrendering their children to be indoctrinated in government propaganda institutions masquerading as schools. How can we be dismayed and surprised at the result?

        Your observation about David, a man after God’s own heart, not daring to lay a hand on Saul was spot on. As we proclaim the Gospel – we need to truly believe that Jesus Christ is going to return – and then, and only then, will there be “peace on earth.”

        Our very early founders proclaimed – “No king but King Jesus.” http://truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus-2.html Now – their descendants want the very same things that Israel wanted when they cried to the last Judge, Samuel, to give them a king.

        1 Samuel 8:5-7

        5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

        6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.

        7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.

        In Christ,


        • Cindy Scott says:

          I don’t believe the story of Gods chosen people, the Israelites, which had Gods favor, which now is every one of Abrahams seed who has faith and believes is equated to matts blog. God was absolutely for them to be victors in war, and the annointed leaders WERE holy, even when they fell short, I don’t believe our presidents hold that distinction. Like comparing apples and oranges. The Roman verse about honoring and submitting to authority better applies, but even then I believe in America critique is what they knew they were getting when they ran for office, we all agreed in this process with upholding the constitution and electorate system.

      • James says:

        AC – I agree with you. You might enjoy this post.
        Here’s an excerpt: “if the minimum standard is to refrain from racial slurs and deceitful insults, then the bar is set far too low.”

      • Sarah says:

        Adam- great comment. Thanks for sharing.
        I, too, have much respect for Matt’s writing and his views. But I would urge him to really study scripture on this topic. When Paul urged the Romans in chapter 13 to submit to governing authority, he was not asking them to follow and obey a great leader. He was telling them to submit to Nero- a godless tyrant who lit Christians on fire and used them to light his garden at night. The same government who would ultimately execute him for Christ’s sake. This is not a command to only respect our governing authorities when it is easy. (Obviously, it is not a command to roll over and let the government do anything it wants, either. God’s law is the ultimate law that we have to follow that over any earthly government.)
        I think Matt’s point about the constitution being our ultimate authority in this country is interesting. But the only way we can say that we have the Biblical right to disrespect president Obama is by saying that he has no authority over us at all.
        Also, it is not a legitimate point to try and justify our disrespect of this administration by saying that “the liberals did it first.” I won’t even let my four year old get away with that arguements. 🙂

        • Sarah says:

          Whew… Please excuse the typos. I should have proofread BEFORE hitting “post.”

        • Agreed. 🙂 On all points, I think. I think it comes down to putting Scripture before America and the constitution. I don’t interpret Romans 13 through American lenses. I interpret America through Scriptural lenses.

      • Cindy scott says:

        Adam, I can appreciate you are a man of God. I also LOVE the story of Saul and David. It was a case of jealousy Saul had toward David that drove him mad, all the time David returning good for evil. I’m not sure you can quite equate that story to Matt’s piece here. What I took from his blog was not to assassinate Obama, but not to bow down to him or the office. He is essentially a civil servant and we the people only pledge allegiance to one nation under GOD, and to the liberty and freedom our founding fathers secured for us. If it true and Obama is doing unconstitutional things, fire the civil servant and get a better one. Well, like Saul, his end will come soon, and I just pray America will choose wiser next time. However I do believe God will give a godless people a godless leader so we may well deserve what we get. Jesus come quickly.

      • James says:

        AC – I agree with you. If the minimum standard is to refrain from racial slurs and deceitful insults, then the bar is set far too low, particularly according to Biblical standards.

        • Thanks Sarah, for your comments. Also James. I agree with the article you linked there. I can’t get mad at Matt, because that would be hypocritical of me. Haha. It’s his frankness and sarcasm I always appreciate, and I know there will be points we disagree. This is one of them. But I agree with both of you on this one. I apologize, Sage, for misreading your comment. I realized later you probably weren’t disagreeing. I would recommend reading “The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders” by Gregg Frazer, my old professors at The Master’s College. The founding fathers collectively were not Christian in any sense of the orthodox meaning. They denied core doctrines of the faith. They also weren’t deists, as is commonly speculated. When you read their writings (Frazer’s book is based not even on their public speeches, but on their letters, since true views come out in personal correspondence), they were what he calls “Theistic Rationalists.” Basically, they would cite Scripture, and hold up “King Jesus”, but only as it supported their moral causes or political agenda. The same is true of Jefferson, arguably not a Deist. They really all fit the same mold. Just to clear that up.

          Also, Cindy, my heart does not belong to a Constitution, nor to a flag, nor to any human declaration, although I’m grateful to live in America. My heart belongs to Christ; my conscience belongs to Him. I’m sure you would agree. The discussion here is… what does Scripture say? And, I would back my brothers and sisters above in saying that the Scriptures teach submission and respect to governing authorities. Even in the OT, even when prophets rebuked kings or approached them, they always approached as approaching God’s anointed. The fact that Saul was “mad” only further proves my point. I’m not sure how that takes away from it. David respected his authority, though Saul was clearly behaving in an ungodly manner. David would not lay a hand on God’s anointed, nor did he want to. Just as Sarah, I think said above… Romans 13 was speaking in the time of Nero, a heartless tyrant. Submit to Nero? The answer: where it doesn’t conflict with a Scripture drive conscience, yes.

          Matt suggests that we are unwittingly giving tribute to a bloody hound of heartless politicians. I have a great respect and love for Matt’s sarcasm (I share the sarcasm, by the way). I’m withholding my sarcasm here because I love his writing and don’t want to discourage it. But, I would humbly suggest that it’s Matt’s comments above that unwittingly give support to what we see on the news and YouTube constantly: exploitation of authority and disdain for God’s anointed.

          “For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.”
          –1 Peter 2:15-17

      • Cindy Scott says:

        Adam, I appreciate your responding, and I promise this will be my last reply :). You seem very well educated in the scripture so maybe you could answer me this. If God annointed EVERY leader (we are assuming Obama has been annointed) why was David able to war with others who God wanted defeated. There must be an answer to this. The reason why I don’t really equate the whole story to today is not because Saul was mad, but because to me the whole issue us should we be allowed to talk smack about our president if we feel it true. I say yes, that’s how we get better leadership for tomorrow. Even David and Jonathan conversed with each other that Saul was mad. Jonathan was like, gee, my own father through a dart at me. You don’t think they didn’t grieve Saul? They didn’t kill him out of respect for Gods annointed, but no one here is saying kill Obama.

        • Cindy Scott says:

          Oh sorry for the typos, also Gods chosen people of the Old Testament can hardly be compared to America. Saul was a holy annointed leader, his position was a holy one because God had a plan to show the nation if Israel as his favored. He doesn’t do that today. As it is written today’s called out chosen people are all if Abrahams seed who are called out and believe. This is different. Obama is the result of our electorate system and should be doing the will go the people. So there is where you will find your judgement. Godless leader for a godless people. We who are godly need to fight and have our voices heard. Maybe a God is allowing Obama to lead for a reason as to embolden the righteous to wake up and we desperately need a revival in America.

        • Cindy, in Daniel 2, it’s very telling to see how Daniel and the men eventually under him spoke to the king (see 2:37). In Daniel 3:16-18, we see a submission to the king’s evil actions and a trust in the Lord. Or how about Daniel with Darius in 6:21? There is also Paul before Agrippa in Acts 26. From what I can see, you are right that Israel is God’s nation and there is a special “anointing”, such as when you read the Psalms. However, in general, being anointed essentially means that you are set aside for God’s purposes. We can’t say, “Well, I think the NT does kind of speak about that, but we must rise up and not allow unholy leaders!” Neither the NT nor the OT suggest this mode of thinking. 1 Peter 2 is very clear, suggesting that–if we suffer–we endure it patiently, having done what is right, and God is glorified. There is no suggestion to slaves to rise up against their masters, or women to show the man who’s boss, or people to throw off the yoke of tyranny and become anarchists. Many would like to read it that way (I sometimes would like that). But, it doesn’t say that. Taking all that into account, we obey, respectfully. As for anointing, Isaiah 45:1-7 also calls Cyrus God’s anointed, affirming that God gave him his “title of honor”.

          The burden of proof really would lay on Matt, you, or whomever else at this point, to show where in Scripture it’s okay to speak sarcastically and disrespectfully about governing authorities if we don’t like them. You mentioned sitting back and being lazy and allowing politicians to take over. No one here has suggested that. You can do the opposite without encouraging disrespect to authorities, as this article kind of encouraged.

          Nothing in Scripture allows us the “freedom” to treat our leaders, whom God has ordained in their positions for His purposes (whether we like His methods or not), with disrespect, disdain, or disobedience (disobedience only when they command what God forbids or forbid what God commands). I would ask Matt and others to show me where in Scripture this is justified.

          Thanks for your courteous reply, by the way.

    • banger377 says:

      Obama is a judgement, but we can turn away from him and toward HIM. That will turn this country from the path of destruction that we are on.

  3. Good subject and well written Matt. You make really good points. Good job.




  4. matt says:

    Brilliantly stated, Matt.

  5. Tim says:

    Another great blog posting in the books. You’ve got a gift, sir!

  6. az_bnb@yahoo.com says:

    Awesome insight Matt! Praise God for your gift!

    bnb ***** He>i


  7. Chad Pittman says:

    Hi all! Love the blog. I did not scan all the comments so someone may have brought this up.

    The “respect the office” conundrum may be explained in military tradition, practice and history. I will attempt to say something here. Please feel free to bale if I am rambling.

    We must respect this office for what it means, not for who is in it.

    The office of the presidency is also a military office (Commander in Chief) and the President is, legally, an “officer” of the US military in the sense he is the top dog. Therefore, in military practice, tradition and attitude, you first respect the “office” as it is – whomever the commanding officer is. You give respect to the collar device first (in this case, the president as commander and chief). The person wearing it has most surely earned it and hopefully reflects that in behavior, and by those he commands. So if I, a sailor, really, really did not like some officer, he was an ass, and I disrespected him as a professional, as a person and disagreed with his leadership, I would still salute him, and not cause scandal with frivolous insubordination. I am saluting and respecting “the office” of this military officer, lieutenant or captain. Now, granted, this is military tradition and function. It is outside civilian politics for sure. ( although it comes with it’s own military “politics.”) However, our President is not only a politician, but a military leader. So I think cheerleaders, proponents and partisans of Barack Obama use the military meaning of “respect the office” to mean respect the political positions, the leadership choices, the policies, and the man personally- respect the man AS the office. One can disrespect the man, and still respect the office of the presidency (Commander in Chief) but only as it relates to it’s true function and responsibilities. Military personnel are required to to salute President Obama, But civilians do not have to. Barack Obama, the man, is not Obama the most high president, in line to rule the Great States of the Kingdom of America.
    He is temporally holding the office of presidency , entrusted by the people of the US to be the leader of the United States of America and act in the interest of said people, and while doing so the highest ranking commanding officer in the US military for the protection of the people. We, as citizens, must respect this office for what it means, not for who is in it, even if he is an incompetent, untrustworthy, radical politician failing his office. God Help us. – Chad P.

    • John Jackson says:

      Yes, however as a citizen not subject to military traditions and with the right of free speech, well at least partially free speech now a days, we do not have to honor anything and can voice our opposition for the actions of the man in the office. This is the essential point being missed by the people the author is referring to. When it affects their candidate it is a horrible sin, but when it does not it is OK.

    • Steve Berman says:

      There’s a difference between “respect” and “honor”. The military RENDERS HONOR for the rank and office of the President and Commander-In-Chief (see Army Pamphlet 600-60 as an example http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/p600_60.pdf). Contrary to popular belief, the term “respect the rank, if not the man” is not accurate. Ranks and authority are to be honored, men and women are to be respected.

      The President of the United States is a civilian position, an elected office. George Washington set the standard for addressing a President, as “Mr. President”, with no other honorific. The President wears no rank or uniform.

      This is a country of ideals and foundational laws, and when the man in the office fails to live up to his commitment and oath to uphold those ideals, then no respect is earned. Good job pointing this out Matt.

      • The President s not just a civilian position. The U.S. Constitution empowers the president to wage wars as commander in chief while Congress has the power to declare wars–in fact to authorize hostilities at any level–and fund them. Legal scholars largely agree that presidents can order U.S. troops to fight when the country is attacked or attack appears imminent but chief executives from both major parties often differ with Congress over their ability to initiate military force in other combat situations. Presidents have demonstrated greater power to wage wars since the end of World War II.

    • Aaron says:

      ” I would still salute him, and not cause scandal with frivolous insubordination”

      I thought this was an excellent expression of your view. In politics it’s sometimes hard to know where the line is between constructive opposition and frivolous insubordination.

  8. Scott Brown says:

    Mike, interesting article to debate

    *Scott Brown** CEO, Sterling Medical*

    *“Strength Is The Product Of Struggle, You Must Do What Others Don’t To Achieve What Others Won’t”! * Phone: *208-705-7747* Fax: *208-247-7777* Email: *sbrown@sterlingm.net * Website: *www.sterlingm.net * [image: photo]

    *Confidentiality Statement*

    This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake, and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Contact me: [image: Skype] 208-881-0221

  9. billo39206 says:

    Why should I respect the Office when it’s occupant obvious does not respect it himself?

  10. acethepug says:

    Well said, Matt! I would argue that Liberal hypocrisy on the subject makes it more relevant in this case with Obama, but your points are well made.

    Thanks for another great post.

  11. Elise says:

    “…as far as I can tell, the responsibility to respect the ‘office’ of a politician falls squarely on the shoulders of the politician who holds it.”


    What does it mean to “respect” an “office”? An “office” is only as respectable as the person occupying it. If the person occupying it is a despot, he corrupts the office. The people of North Korea “respect” Kim Jong Un’s “office.” How’s that working out for ’em? The “office” isn’t some sacred anointing. It doesn’t insulate the bearer from criticism; if anything, it makes him MORE accountable to the people. But that’s not how THIS president views it. He views it as a license to do as he chooses with no regard for the people he was elected to govern. That makes him a despot unworthy of respect. If “respecting” his “office” means to do nothing while he trashes the country, other than to- what?- humbly and impotently entreat him (as if we were his servants, rather than the reverse) to not gut our economy and jeopardize our national security anymore? Then no. I absolutely will NOT “respect” his “office.”

    Or, to put it another way, I “respect the office” enough to raise my voice when it has been seized by a dictator hell bent on destroying the country. In fact, I would say that if a person is content to allow the “office” to be filled with corruption like a festering zit, maybe they don’t respect it enough.

  12. Dee Kruse says:

    Well spoken Matt, but I’m afraid you are about to be audited ! Keep writing truth brother.

  13. analyticalperspective says:

    Favorite quote of the day:

    “I imagine they’d already have returned to the British Motherland and said ‘sorry, my bad,’ over that whole unfortunate Revolution misunderstanding.”

    “In this nation, we prostrate ourselves to no one, other than the Lord.”

    Amen and “Hell, yeah!”

  14. analyticalperspective says:

    “Either our duty as watchful citizens is to doubt our politicians and their offices, or it is to respect them. One protects liberty, the other destroys it.”

    Here, here.

  15. analyticalperspective says:


    You may have noticed that I am a barbarian of sorts … at times … depending on the mood … so don’t take this at face value:


  16. analyticalperspective says:

    Dude’s on target:

    “should be given the benefit of the doubt about as often as it’s given to sex offenders or kleptomaniacs.”

  17. analyticalperspective says:

    Liberals! Listen and learn!!

    “logistical problem with respecting the office, too. Namely, the Office of the Presidency as prescribed in the constitution is one thing, while the Office of the Presidency as currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is quite another.”

  18. analyticalperspective says:

    I wish I had the ability and originality to see things the way you do.

    I. AM. So. Jealous.

    “When you respect the Office of the Presidency, you are either respecting the president himself, or you’re respecting this bloated perversion of a political station, one that has been used to murder and oppress.”

    Somebody’s gotta coin this phrase:

    “respecting this bloated perversion of a political station.”

  19. analyticalperspective says:

    Matt’s wife!! Attention! You are a lucky woman!

  20. analyticalperspective says:

    Reblogged this on analyticalperspective and commented:
    It is past time to hate this “bloated perversion of a political station” called the United States Presidential Seat or hand in our Constitutional Rights.

  21. analyticalperspective says:

    Excellent point, Matt. Quite objective … as you are 80 percent of the time.

    “It’s true that we shouldn’t hurl racial slurs and dishonest ad hominem insults at the president — regardless of who he is — but that isn’t because of his office. That’s just because he’s a person, and we shouldn’t do that to any person. It’s not the dignity of any office that we have a responsibility to uphold, but the dignity of a human being.”

  22. analyticalperspective says:

    “Worry about our liberties. Respect that. Respect our liberty. The politicians don’t need your respect, and they haven’t earned it.”

    Straight up, brother.

  23. Anastasia Remmes says:

    Thank you Matt! Well said! I am weeping over the multitudes who are more concerned over their desire to walk in greater darkness than those who desire righteousness. We are watching Fascism develop while Christians are saying ” we need to love unconditionally like Jesus” Even so, come quickly Lord!

  24. Robert says:

    The Republican party destroyed the presidency and are hard at work destroying the Country.

    • mo says:

      LOL! Looks like you’ve been asleep since 2008.

      There’s a DEMOCRAT as president now, not a Republican.

      Anything to say on all the lies of this corrupt man documented in Matt’s other post? No? Still worshiping him?

      Yeah, that’s what I thought.

      • Becca says:

        Oh but none of that can be his fault. He INHERITED a mess remember??? He can’t be held responsible for ANY of his actions because….BUSH.

        • Mo says:

          I don’t know how they can still claim , “But Bush!” with a straight face. I mean, Obama’s on his SECOND term! But oh, no. Nothing’s his fault.

        • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

          I hope you’re being sarcastic here. As I recall, even though Bush put us into wars, it’s Obama who has now spent more in his 6 years in office than all the other presidents combined. That’s not inherited. And seriously? You say he can’t be held responsible for ANY of his actions? I thought this was something known as the human race, where everyone is accountable for their own actions

    • Zachary Hagedorn says:

      Finally someone with a frontal lobe

    • Tony says:

      So the Republicans signed into law the ACA?
      The Republicans raised our national debt by 58% in 5 years?
      The Republicans have been being caught and arrested by the FBI for taking bribes and gun running?
      The Republicans have been seizing rancher’s cattle that have used the same land for their herds for 200 years?
      The Republicans were the ones that denied our citizens in Benghazi protection when they pleaded for it?
      The Republicans sent a random film maker to prison when Benghazi was attacked?
      The Republicans signed search and seizure warrants for reporters with little to no evidence?
      The Republicans were running guns into Syria to arm Al-Qaeda Rebels?
      The Republicans have been printing money off at record rates and flooding the market with US dollars?
      The Republicans promised to half the deficit and instead quadrupled it?
      The Republicans have spent billions of dollars on Green energy companies that have failed and left the taxpayers on the hook to make up the difference?

      Damn, I must have been misinformed the last 5 years, thanks for letting me know.

      • Jen says:

        Yes! Where have you been? The Dems are in charge and in control and besides gaining dependency of half our country, it is putting the rest in the poor house with the 1000+ pages bill they did not read and made a law. Not to mention spending more in one presidency than in all the others combined. Guess what. They are not done either. If we are not careful our country will turn into what American founding fathers left England because of.

    • Steve Berman says:

      Hahahaha, when the Dems had the presidency and both houses of Congress, they shoved thousand page bills that nobody had read down our throats.

      If you wish to post such psychotic blather, do it on Huffpost.

    • Oh, yes. All the solemn respect that Clinton built up was dissipated by George W. Bush. No doubt about it….

    • That Guy says:

      You do realize that the government is controlled by the Democrats at this moment don’t you? And as far as slamming Republicans, there are at least two things that occurred during W. Bush’s term that were a result of policies and advice in place from Clinton’s term in office. The stock market collapse in the early 2000’s came about as result of economic policies put into place during Clinton’s term. And the search for WMD’s in Iraq came from intelligence collected during Clinton’s term and advisors warning the President that Sadam was a threat to the national security. Notice that I’m NOT shifting all the blame from W. Bush to Clinton, nor am I absolving W. Bush of the responsibility for the bad things that happened during his terms in office. I’m simply saying that W. Bush does not deserve as much hate he received then and receives now. Democrats are just as responsible as recent Republicans for destroying the presidency and the nation.

      • I think the previous posts were tongue in cheek. The democrats were definitely the ones primarily guilty of the litany of horrendous assaults on our freedoms. I appreciated the satire. It sure brings it close to home to imagine the outrage if it had been the Republicans who had actually committed all those atrocities. Sheesh.

  25. military widow says:

    Excellent blog Matt! The very first person who must “respect the office” is the person residing within it. Woefully, this is not the case today.

  26. Kris says:

    Matt I LOVE this post!! Thank you!!! When my mom was Teacher of the Year at her school, she was invited to the White House to meet then Pres Clinton. She shook his hand but said she didn’t smile at him because he is a sexual predator. But she said she shook his hand to show respect for The Office. I thought she should have NOT shaken his hand and now your blog finally explains what I felt in my heart, but couldn’t express. Keep writing!! You are gifted!!

  27. lazlo300 says:

    This is not my President
    He is a traitor
    He deserves neither my respect or honor
    He deserves Mussolini’s fate

    • Mr. Obama is the current President of the United States. You must not live in the US, maybe a tourist?

      • Matt(Not Walsh) says:

        He may be the current president, but he has completely neglected his oath to uphold the constitution. He is constantly performing actions that violate the constitution, such as taking away the first amendment rights of citizens while accusing Republicans of attempting to take away minorities rights to vote by making them present identification when voting or registering to vote. Someone who is elected then completely disregards the legal backbone of this country is someone who I call guilty of treason.

  28. cdciii says:

    Another good blog post, Matt. However, there is another aspect of respect. In the presence of an unfettered rhinoceros, I don’t esteem or honor the critter, but I most certainly respect it and what it can do. definitionally respect means esteem and honor, but it also means . “To avoid violation of or interference with: To relate or refer to”.

    Our Prez is a traitor, liar, a warmonger, a racist, a narcissist, thief and possibly a closeted Muslim and foreigner. Three months into his first term I was asking the question “If an enemy of this country were elected in Bamster’s place, what would he do that would be different on the course to destroy America as a power?” But I still regard and respect what the man can do, not for good, but evil.

    I also respect what God is doing through this man. Jesus is the Rock that will fall on the unbeliever and grind him to the utter destruction of dust. He is also the Rock upon which the believer MUST fall and be broken. There are no other choices. We as believers have been very comfy in western society, particularly in “Christian” America, often confusing the two. Patriotism is fine, as long as it takes a distant back seat to Christ, His body and family.

    During my entire life I have watched America slipping from being generally good into being almost thoroughly evil in its governance. It is unrecognizable from my youth in the fifties. Perhaps part of what is going on is God stripping us of our identity as “American” Christians and demanding that instead we be content with the sorrow (in this world) of merely being Christ’s…

  29. shoe1000 says:

    To say that it is a certain politician or party that creates the problems of today is myopic. To say that one messiah is going to save us from ourselves is the same.
    We have to start finding common ground. Common ground does not come from the duality we live in and with. Telling me my choices are only one of two creates the positions where “good,” and “evil,” can flourish and the viciousness of today’s political world can exist.
    Telling me that there is one way to honor the Ggods is the same.
    Joseph Campbell said that “God is a metaphor for all that is beyond intellectual.” He also said that all religions are true but none are literal. To say that there is only one way to the “spiritual,” way of life is as confining as saying that we only have two “real” choices of who should lead us as politicians.
    I support your discontent in how the law is interpreted. I however disagree in vilifying one person. I did not like President Bush, nor do I like President Obama particularly.
    I support both the NRA and the ACLU. The are not inherently oppositional perspectives.

  30. Roger says:

    Good prophetic article. You sound like Elisha or Jeremiah. It seems to me that pointing out the evils and corruption of the one presently in the office is precisely respect for the office. The best thing we could do to respect the office of president of the United States would be to impeach the present occupant forcing him to step down. We won’t do that because we are confused about what respect is, respect by what standard? Romans 13 is about government that serves God, not government that wants to be god.

    • James says:

      Roger – at the time Romans was written, Nero was the emperor. In case you don’t remember, Nero’s the guy who captured Christians and burned them in his garden at night in place of lamps.

      • cdciii says:

        Romans was composed (according to some) about 56 A.D., two years into Nero’s reign (54 – 68 A.D.) and long before he was able to effect policy in gov’t to any great degree.

        The whole point of Romans 13 is not that we should blindly obey gov’t, but that God is in control of it and it is generally true that He institutes it for the good of those under it, making it wise to comply with it up to the point that it violates allegiance to God. In those specific instances when it does, gov’t MUST be resisted.

        • James says:

          To effect “policy”? Considering it only took him a year to have the son of Emperor Claudius poisoned (Britannicus), I think your comment about “policy” might be missing the point. Regardless, I would hope that we can agree that the point of Romans, and the other passages I cited in my blog, is that God establishes authority and gives us clear guidelines for our response to such authority. We are to “honor the king” and to “[s]ubmit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.” (1 Peter 2). That does not mean we have to agree with every decision and it does not — as you noted — mean that we obey authority when to do so would directly violate God’s word, but I find it unlikely that this image constitutes “honor[ing] the king.” https://themattwalshblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/untitled-48.png

  31. Guido says:

    I thank God that George W. Bush was our president for eight years. That said, I really enjoyed watching That’s My Bush!.

  32. a12iggymom says:

    Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.

  33. August says:

    It is hard to respect an office that the president himself mocks.

  34. Steve Berman says:

    What we have here is a failure to communicate. “Respect” can be one of the words we can add to the English/Liberal dictionary, but I think the definition of “President” covers it.

    President: When a Liberal is in the office: a Messiah, King, and Giver of Good Gifts. When a conservative is in office: a tyrant, a hateful puppet of The Man (see “The Man”)


  35. Pingback: Matt Walsh Doesn’t Respect the Office of the President, But He Should | bowlingwithed

  36. Great words as always Matt!

    Thank you for preaching some common sense in a world that’s gone mad.

    I mostly wanted to leave a message for you as a follow up to your citation of Romans 13.

    Ironically, Romans 13 as we know it is wrong. It’s a mistranslation that says something quite different than what the original manuscript says. (Probably why it’s been such a source of confusion & division within the church for so many years.).

    When I was a teenager, my best girlfriend Mary – (who immigrated to the US from Greece), explained this to me. (That was many years before the public had access to internet & social media).

    Several years after that – (now several years ago), I found myself in the midst of an online debate over Romans 13 & wanted to show the others the mistranslated text with both translations. I did a web search for the corrected translation & found what I needed at one of PrisonPlanet’s online forums.. (an excerpt of it is pasted below.)

    I hope you find this as enlightening as I did. 😉 If you do, please be sure to pass the details along!

    Take care & God Bless!


    ===> excerpt ====>

    “I could turn this into an article but why bore you? I am a Greek speaking American. My wife was raised in Greece and spent 17 years there. So we decided, let’s look up Romans 13:

    NIV translation: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

    New American Standard Bible (NASB)

    1Every (A)person is to be in (B)subjection to the governing authorities For (C)there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

    Greek Version (1550 AD)


    1πασα ψυχη εξουσιαις υπερεχουσαις υποτασσεσθω ου γαρ εστιν εξουσια ει μη απο θεου αι δε ουσαι εξουσιαι υπο του θεου τεταγμεναι εισιν

    Translation (WORD FOR WORD)

    Every single soul of ruling, dominating (or) submissive, they do not have substance of ruling if they are not from God and under God.

    English Translation:

    Every governing soul including those in highest command or lowest command have no authority if they are NOT ruling as fair and just as God.”

  37. frugoal says:

    I was just happy to find out that the Obama’s income was down compared to last year…a small victory.

  38. itor says:

    Romans 13 reads much differently in the King James (& earlier) texts. And, we should interpret Bible passages through the scope of the entire Bible, not isolated verses. It is instructive to review how Moses, Daniel, David, Paul & yes Jesus acted toward the earthly Authoritah of the day, not with blind obeisance but with scorn & rejection. Gotta mean something for us.

    • Aaron says:

      Huh? Scorn and rejection? What Bible are you reading?
      Moses: disrespected Pharaoh by killing a slave driver and was forced to flee into the wilderness; after that he spoke very respectfully to Pharaoh and let God deliver Israel.
      Daniel: a faithful servant of a long string of pagan kings; he occasionally declined to obey them, but never with “scorn” or rejection.
      David: refused on multiple occasions to raise his hand against Saul, even though Saul was clearly in the wrong.
      Paul: was always respectful towards the pagan Roman authorities, and when he realized he had insulted the High Priest he apologized.
      Jesus: even though he was the ultimate authority in the UNIVERSE he remained silent before his accusers and set aside his right to sweep them away with an army of angels.
      Jude: Points out that even the archangel Michael (who, I expect, has more authority than Matt Walsh) didn’t even bring a slanderous accusation against Satan.

      So, while you had everything else backwards, your last sentence holds much weight: “Gotta mean something for us”.

  39. Jen says:

    I enjoyed your article Matt and agreed with most of it. I have lived the military keep your mouth closed if nothing positive about the “commander in chief” and agree with those who have thrown impeachment on the table.

  40. MattWalshisPropaganda says:

    Please join our Matt Walsh on this week’s episode of “Straw Man Arguments Gone Wild”…

    • Javin says:

      *sigh* And please join yet another liberal on this week’s episode of, “Shit talking we do without anything to back it up!”

  41. Ken Sundwall says:

    First of all, Obama is not the issue!!!!! He is just another President in a long line of Presidents all of whom have done both good and bad!!! The majority of our problems come from Congress and the Judicial System. The President is but ONE person who tries to follow the advice of many advisors, incl. Congress and the Judicial System, while trying to listen to the people, most of which can’t make up their minds whether to turn there toilet paper forward or backward.

    Oh and those of you who bring “GOD and JESUS” into the fray, remember, these are just myths, like all other “Gods” throughout history. They were made up to try to explain away things that couldn’t be explained at the time. And when used properly, as a teaching tool, the Bible IS but just another book, written by and constantly edited by none other than MAN!!!

    So, Mr. Walsh, when it comes to the people who put down the presidents or come to their defense, it happens in all periods, just as ferociously as it is happening with Mr. Obama. I for one think he is doing a great job, considering the Congress he is being forced to fight every at every turn. And as for the Bushes, we’ve gotten rid of 2 of them, PLEASE AMERICA, don’t be stupid enough to let a 3rd one into office!!!!

    Just my 2 cents!!!

    • Aaron says:

      I’m genuinely curious here: how exactly does one use the Bible as a “teaching tool” if the central premise of that book – that there is an infinite-personal creator God – is false?

    • Tony says:

      Interesting view you have there. I would have agreed with you on every president leading up to this one, but this one takes the cake as the only president who has vastly overstepped his bounds.

      No president prior has changed a law 20+ times after getting it passed in an illegal manner, nor pushed the affects of the law out 4+ years so that the public wouldn’t realize how terrible it was so that he could get re-elected.

      No president prior has increased our national debt buy such a large amount, putting us in a position of losing the US dollar as the international trade currency.

      No president prior has printed off so much money to pay off debt, creating a huge US dollar cash bubble that will have to normalize at some point in the future.

      No president prior has lied, blatantly, and repeatedly, and when called on it, every time just doubles down on the lie.

      Do you know why congress is fighting him? He had a democratic majority in the house and the senate and they passed the ACA without a single Republican vote. Then the US voters realized how terrible the president was for the country, so they voted in a bunch more Republicans who said they would fight the president and stop him from ruining our country. That’s why congress is fighting him, because the US public wants congress to.

  42. PB says:

    I remember saying “respect the office” quite a bit during the Bush years. I have to stay consistent. Just because the other side uses insults and gutter language doesn’t mean we can. We stand above that. I’m becoming more and more frustrated with Obama’s policies, but I really don’t know if he’s “lying.” It’s really hard to prove nowadays if someone was really lying (knowingly saying something wrong or misleading) or just mistaken.Did Bush really know there were no WMDs and invaded Iraq anyway, almost costing him his re-election? Course not – he was just in the dark. He’s only one man with hundreds of thousands working under him – same with Obama. I think Obama was just in the dark – honestly, did he really think the website would bomb this badly? This is a management issue. It’s fortunate for the GOP it was botched as it did, as it gave them fodder. I have to disagree with you here – calling the President of the USA a liar is a bit low for the usual quality of this blog.

    • Tony says:

      Obama’s 2008 Platform vs Reality: (I am taking the bullet points directly from the platform put out by him)

      Affordable, Quality Health Care Coverage for All Americans
      -The ACA is only affordable for the lower incomes. Lie #1.

      Retirement and Social Security
      -Made a bunch of promises on this front, and then voted to cut veteran retirement benefits so that illegal aliens could keep their government funding. Lie #2

      -He said he would cut poverty in half within 10 years. We’re going to make the 10 year mark, in fact his economic policies have made this an impossibility. Lie #3

      New American Energy
      -Lots of promises here, like lowering gas prices and investing in companies that would give us new opportunities. The companies he chose to invest in were all lemons that failed and left the taxpayers on the hook and gas prices have not come down. Lie #4

      Economic Stewardship
      -This whole section makes me want to strangle him with it. He talks a lot about fiscal responsibility and securing our future, and then he puts us over 1 trillion farther into debt every year he’s president. Lie #5

      Revitalizing and Supporting the Military, Keeping Faith With Veterans
      -Here’s a direct quote “We support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 troops and the Marines by 27,000 troops”. Guess we don’t really want to keep it that way? Lie #6

      I could actually go on for awhile, but here’s the gist. Pretty much everything I’ve heard him say is not what he does. Sure he passed the ACA, he said he would pass the ACA, but the ACA does not do anything that he said it would. From what I can tell if you listen to him, and then picture him doing the exact opposite, you’ll actually be pretty good at predicting his actions.

      • PB says:

        Tony, I see all this and agree that it’s disappointing, bad form, breaking a promise, and other bad things, but we can’t prove any of this is actually lying. In other words, did he say he wants to increase the military, while simultaneously thinking “No, I’ll really not do that.”? How can we tell? We have no leaked emails or any evidence to show that these were lies.

        The presidency is a reality-check on any candidates’ plans. I’ve seen lists similar to what you’ve posted on G.W. Bush. For example, Bush said in one of the 2000 election debates that he opposes nation-building – but look what he spent the majority of his presidency doing? I don’t think he lied, he just changed his mind due to things that happen. Maybe Bush or Obama truly lied. But it can’t be proven, so I prefer to stick with more provable points – he broke a promise, he’s inconsistent, etc. The list you posted would be more persuasive if there weren’t “Lie #_” at the end of each one.

  43. Adam says:

    Wow. Are you seriously going to pretend that that dingus cattle rancher out in Nevada is some kind of hero?

    He’s been grazing his cattle on government land without paying the fee. So the taxpayer has been feeding his cattle for him, which he then sells and makes a great deal of profit. He’s been doing it for twenty years, and the government is only just now doing something after they have done everything in their power to get him to simply STOP SKIMPING ON THE DAMN FEE.

    This is the equivalent of somebody who goes into Yellowstone Park every day, chops down a cord of firewood, and sells it on the street, and you want to turn him into a hero? He’s worth the idiot Cleetus Division militia guys getting their AR-15’s and pretending that Red Dawn is going down? People could have gotten killed, and it would have happened because this freaking cheapskate is profiting off of ripping off the taxpayer. It has !@#$ all to do with “turtles.”

    And please spare me the biblical references. I don’t give a rats ass. You might as well be pointing to specific pages in the Harry Potter books.

    • Spartacus says:

      Posted a few days ago:

      Nevada is over 90% federal land.

      When the state was carved out right at the end of the civil war, Lincoln, (the worst constitutional president in our history prior to the current one) made sure that all the states entering would bow down to the the fed and our state constitution and the great amount of federal land reflects that.
      Since most of the state is desert, ranchers have always had to use tremendous acreage to feed cattle here. Our state was brought into the union around 1865. Prior to that, and after that, up till 1934 ranchers had legal free reign to graze cattle with no restrictions. This was called forage rights.

      In the 1930’s the ranchers had arguments between themselves regarding territories. So a few of the larger ones got together and asked the fed if they could hire them, by paying minimal fees to “manage” the land and break it out into sections. This was made into the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934.

      The fees are minimal. $1.74 per cow & calf per month. Ranchers had no problem paying that just to have disagreements settled.

      Ranchers were also required to secure water rights and maintain and make improvements on the land. Mr. Bundy and his predecessors have always done that. No one is arguing that fact.
      Bundy’s ranch was established in 1877. His family purchased it later, in the 1880’s. But when they did, they had to PAY for the water and forage rights.

      After the 1934 act they continued to pay grazing fees and make improvements up until the 1990’s.

      Somewhere along the way the Bureau of Land Management was created. I don’t know what year.
      Around 1990 or so they told him that he could no longer graze more than 150 of his 600 or so head of cattle there.

      He told them to pound sand and kept paying his fees and grazing his cattle.

      Around 1994 they told him he could only graze them in the summer, fall and winter and said it was so that the cattle didn’t disturb the Desert Tortoise. (more on that later)

      He told them that they were HIRED by the Taylor Grazing act to MANAGE the land for the ranchers. So he FIRED them and started paying his fees to to the state of Nevada. Soon they didn’t know where to put it so they quit taking payments.

      Meanwhile they came at him from another angle. When they saw they weren’t going to be able to force him off the land the BLM SOLD the rights to the land to the state of Nevada under the condition that the state RETIRE the grazing rights permanently. Nevada legislators, being idiots, did their bidding. That was around 1996 or so.

      But the state left him alone and let him forage all those years.

      A few years ago, due to Agenda 21, Ranchers around the nation were being shut down and either bought out (with a program that paid them a lump sum of YOUR taxpayer funds in exchange for quitting ranching.

      A lot of them did. The program was touted as “optional” but they intimidated the ranchers with lawsuits ranging from environmental concerns to water concerns to endangered species.

      Before all this there were 50 ranchers in Clark County Nevada. Now there is one. Cliven Bundy.

      For 20 years they tried to remove another rancher, Mr Hage, from a neighboring county. The sheriff of that county came to his aid and told the feds to screw off. They threatened the sheriff with a swat team and he told them to bring it on, he had his own swat team. The feds screwed up with Mr Hage though. They made it a water rights issue and after 20 years, about a year after he died, they lost in court.

      Now they don’t play the water rights card anymore because it is too cut and dry. They now play the environmental card because they can make up the rules and change them whenever they like.

      This is what they have done with Bundy. Everytime he gets where he can win, they change the laws and he loses in court.

      So now it is about the Desert Tortoise. This is an animal the BLM had a habitat for, but when they ran out of money to run the habitat they slaughtered 1800 of them. Miraculously they now claim they have mysteriously found 3 million dollars that they are paying to round up and steal Bundy’s cattle. They are paying the slimy for hire private cowboys 1 million of that.

      So now they have a court order to take his cattle and auction them.

      The sheriffs of nearby counties have stated that they will stop them along the way and make them produce a signed agreement from Bundy or they will confiscate the cattle and give them back. That only leaves them one route out, straight down through Clark County to Arizona or California. I believe they are already auctioning off any of the ones they found that were not branded even though it is common knowledge they are his because he is the only rancher there. There isn’t much the sheriffs can do about that.

      When this happened in neighboring counties and in other states the sheriffs backed the ranchers up. Our Sheriff is a spineless puss of a half-man and refuses to get involved. I assume the only way he will get involved is if he hears the BLM rangers shooting civilians and sends his guys up to help out of jealousy of all the fun they are having. We have the most corrupt and worthless police department in the country.

      To make matters worse, I spoke to the lesser of two evils running for Sheriff this time around yesterday at a luncheon and asked him why they weren’t helping. He answered that from his understanding Bundy was just a guy who wouldn’t pay his fees and he didn’t think they should get involved. He knew nothing of the Taylor Grazing act or any of the history of Bundy’s rights to graze. Great, replacing a worthless bag of skin for sheriff with another worthless bag of skin. We can’t win.

      So now they are using helicopters to round up his cattle and try to take them to auction. He claims he has about 500 head, they say 900. Probably because they don’t know that the Taylor Grazing act counts a cow and a calf as one head. They are stressing the cattle and some of them are dying in the chase. That is why they brought in backhoes and dump trucks.
      The people in the video above were trying to block them on private land before they got to public lands and were tazed and thrown to the ground.

      The BLM has set up “free speech zones” for people to protest. Two 50×50 pig pens for them to stand in. But they can only use one of them at a time.

      Bundy’s son was arrested day before yesterday when he pulled over on a STATE road where he could see the valley and take pictures of the way they were treating the cattle.

      They threw him down to the ground, ground his head in the dirt with their boots, and took him to Henderson jail, then to the federal building. Eventually they gave him a ticket for protesting outside the “free speech zone” and “resisting arrest”. They let him go 80 miles away in Las Vegas with no money. He had a credit card which he used to trade some gas at a gas station for use of a lady’s cell phone, to get someone to pick him up.

      Yesterday they arrested a few more protesters for being outside the “free speech zone”.

      Militias from all over the nation are being called up to come to Nevada. People are flying and driving in from everywhere. This is the first time in our history where men from all over the country have been willing to come together to fight against the federal government. If this had happened at Waco, our entire country would be different today.

      Politicians are afraid to say much. The republicans don’t want to say anything because he lost in federal court and that’s all that matters to those scumbags. The Democrats don’t care so much about the courts as they lavish in the idea that a fat rich rancher and destroyer of the environment is getting what he deserves.

      The libertarians are all that’s left. And he has a LOT of support from Sheriffs and Oath Keepers. (other than our bag of skin)

      The bottom line is the Feds want all ranching stopped. They are doing it on federal lands first, then will do it on private lands based on the new definitions in the clean water act. It’s an Agenda 21 implementation. It wouldn’t matter if he paid fees from here to kingdom come, they want him shut down and they will try any angle they can. He stated that after reading their plans to retire all the land for grazing he refused to finance his own demise by giving them fees. I’m with him 100%. And apparently so are thousands of others willing to come here.

  44. R Daneel says:

    I really like that picture of Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan. The look of consternation his and the Empresses faces (if you know the Japanese and what to look for) says it all. You never bow AND shake hands. The appropriate bow would be a slight nod of the head with hands at your side (he is the US head of state) then step forward and shake the hand with a level gaze to the Emperor.

    Takuan Seiyo said it best:

    “That is the bow of a broken backed toilet attendant to his ultimate master.”

  45. BrianInNC says:

    Interesting post as usual Matt. It has made me rethink some of my assumptions that were formed as a young man serving in the military. Respect the rank was the constant drumbeat as it should have been. Anarchy in battle means death and devastation. When I opted out after one tour that ethos was incorporated in my character. But as you say we are under a constitutional republic and are given inalienable rights-by God.

    I understand the push back by some that Christians not be political. I find that to be lazy thinking. We should have our opinions and politics informed by the renewed mind and spirit. I see this post as a form of being wise in this present age. The Apostle Paul claimed his Roman citizenship when the mob turned against him. Surely it acceptable to exercise the rights afforded to us under our constitution.

    I am convinced of one thing. It will get worse.

    • Tony says:

      Well when you are military there is another angle that gets tossed in. As you are required to obey the lawful orders of those above you, up to and including the President. And all those above you, you need to be respectful of as commanders.

      But giving a commander respect and following his lawful orders does not mean you have to vote for his re-election or say you support his economic policies if your buddy asks you. There are plenty of ways to disagree respectfully as well.

  46. Kristana Beard says:

    No kidding. I am embarrassed to be an American for this very reason. Obama. We can’t stand up anymore and say no to things that r good for the people. We have to pay to get things now and pay for other people’s mistakes. Obama is pretty much sending the message to everyone that everyones entitled to everything and eventually we will fall apart. No one will work for anyone but our president and his office…..scary thought.

  47. gidzmo says:

    I have a hard time respecting a man who has not kept his word (Obamacare), is still blaming his predecessor after nearly six years in office, or seems to be making enemies of our friends.

  48. Jeremy says:

    Matt, you are generally spot on and I think you are certainly a voice for good on many issues. On this one, though, I would urge caution. If Biblical principles are what you are going for here, I would urge you to consider I Peter 2:13-17 (especially verse 17).

    Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. (1 Peter 2:13-17 NASB)

    Dictionary.com says to honor means to revere, to hold in honor or high respect. In submitting to a government we may not agree with, we silence the ignorance of foolish men. Now, obviously, this does not give us leeway to violate God’s law (we ought to obey God rather than man). I don’t believe this prohibits us from disagreeing with our leaders, but we must remain respectful and honoring as we do it.

    A practical example of this appears in Acts 23:1-5. Paul kinda lashes out at the high priest Annanias. When it is pointed out that he is a high priest, you see a change in his tone towards him. He doesn’t change his defensive posture, but we don’t see him calling him colloquial expressions like “whitewashed wall.” And this was toward someone who technically did not have any power anymore.

    Paul, looking intently at the Council, said, “Brethren, I have lived my life with a perfectly good conscience before God up to this day.” The high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit to try me according to the Law, and in violation of the Law order me to be struck?” But the bystanders said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘Y ou shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.'” (Acts 23:1-5 NASB)

    Maybe I missed the point on this article, but I feel like, at least Biblically, you are a little off base. I’ll be the first to admit this is very difficult for me and I at times do not want to do this, but I feel God requires us to respect (honor) the position.

    Keep up the good fight.

  49. Lisa says:

    Two words that describe Matt Walsh and his thoughts: Cognitive Dissonance.

Comments are closed.