This article is from Russian News Sight Pravda, April 27, 2009 titled "American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper." It is printed in full.
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin
This Russian gets it better than most Americans... sad.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Obama Care and His Lies
This is from copy/pasted from an email that I received from "The League of American Voters"
Dear Friend:
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people. Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan. Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
This is a complete fabrication. Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan. That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well. Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system. So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
More baloney. In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational." The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care. Who would pay for it. You would! Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit. Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient." This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care. It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats! Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery. Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old. We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors. You can see the ad by Going Here Now
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
More lies. Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be. These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare. They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines. Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees. The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'” Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life." Expose the lies — Go Here Now.
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
Absolute nonsense. The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system. But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now. You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes. Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan. Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens. None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion. Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today. This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare.
"Every American who wants to stop Obamacare should join with the League," Morris says. "They have the best strategy to stop it from becoming law." Just two weeks ago, the League's powerful new TV ad went on the air. Thanks to your help, it's already running in 12 states — and it is affecting millions of people. We believe it is one reason some Democrats are starting to retreat. But our job is not done. We must fight the lies. We must expose the dangers of Obamacare to all Americans.
Please act today by joining the League and donating to us today.
To Donate Go Here Now Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Adams Executive Director
P.S. Our TV ad, which Dick Morris crafted, is so effective that ABC News refused to run it. If you take a moment to watch the ad, you'll see why. It simply tells the truth, in the words of a respected medical doctor. Take a minute to watch it — and most importantly, help us continue this battle! To Watch the Ad and Donate — Go Here Now
Ok... take out the emotional language, and I really like the email. Someone is lying. Do you trust Obama, Nancy, Harry, Barney? How painful do they have to make it for you?
Dear Friend:
Are Obama and his friends taking you as a fool?
You have to wonder what they really think about the intelligence of the American people. Obama repeatedly has out-and-out lied about his healthcare plan. Here are just 5 of the big whoppers.
Lie #1: 'You Keep Your Doctor, You Keep Your Insurer'
This is a complete fabrication. Under plans Obama has backed in the House and the Senate, almost any business can opt their employees into the "public option" — the government health plan. That means you could lose your insurer. And if your doctor is worth his salt, you'll lose him or her as well. Why? Because great doctors probably will not want to get the very low rates the government will pay private doctors who are part of the new government system. So, without your consent, you very easily could lose your insurer and your doctor.
Lie #2: The Elderly Will Not Face Rationing or Medicare Cuts
More baloney. In fact, just last week, The New York Times, a very liberal and very pro-Obama newspaper, admitted that fears of rationing for elderly patients are "not irrational." The truth is that Obamacare would almost 50 million new patients to government care. Who would pay for it. You would! Seniors on Medicare will be the first hit. Here's what the Times reported: "Bills now in Congress would squeeze savings out of Medicare, a lifeline for the elderly, on the assumption that doctors and hospitals can be more efficient." This means that faceless bureaucrats will decide the type and quality of your care. It is a very dangerous thing to give your life and well-being over to government bureaucrats! Imagine if you or a loved one is older than 80 years and critically needs heart surgery. Instead of getting the heart procedure, you or that loved one could be informed that you are simply too old. We at the League of American Voters have been warning of this danger and have a powerful TV commercial exposing the risks to seniors. You can see the ad by Going Here Now
Lie #3: There Will Be No "Death Panels."
More lies. Sure, they don't call them "death panels" in the legislation, but that's what their job will be. These committee members will set guidelines with which faceless bureaucrats will make decisions about you and your healthcare. They will decide who lives and who dies. They decide who gets critical procedures and expensive medicines. Again, according to the New York Times, the Democratic plans call for saving money by creating new oversight committees. The Times says that Medicare and insurers would be expected to follow "advice from a new federal panel of medical experts on 'what treatments work best.'” Again, this very liberal paper concluded: "The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life." Expose the lies — Go Here Now.
Lie #4: The Obama Plan Contains Costs
Absolute nonsense. The Obama plan will cost more than $1 trillion in new federal outlays, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This past weekend, Sen. Joe Lieberman claimed that most of this cost comes from adding 50 million people, currently uninsured, to the government health system. But as Lieberman pointed out, we just don't have the money to do this right now. You can add only so many people to the government system by cutting medical care to seniors on Medicare and raising taxes. Democrats clearly plan to do both.
Lie #5: Illegals Are Not Covered by Obamacare
President Obama has stated time and again that illegal aliens are not covered under his new plan. Still, Democrats say they want to add almost 50 million uninsured. Yet almost one-quarter of these uninsured are illegal aliens. None of the Democratic plans excludes illegal aliens.
In fact, when Republicans proposed an amendment to the House plan to block illegals from getting free government healthcare, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her minions soundly defeated the motion. Many, many lies are emanating from Washington today. This is why the work of the League of American Voters is so critical now.
Dick Morris, the famous Fox News analyst and campaign strategist, says the League is the No. 1 organization today fighting Obamacare.
"Every American who wants to stop Obamacare should join with the League," Morris says. "They have the best strategy to stop it from becoming law." Just two weeks ago, the League's powerful new TV ad went on the air. Thanks to your help, it's already running in 12 states — and it is affecting millions of people. We believe it is one reason some Democrats are starting to retreat. But our job is not done. We must fight the lies. We must expose the dangers of Obamacare to all Americans.
Please act today by joining the League and donating to us today.
To Donate Go Here Now Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob Adams Executive Director
P.S. Our TV ad, which Dick Morris crafted, is so effective that ABC News refused to run it. If you take a moment to watch the ad, you'll see why. It simply tells the truth, in the words of a respected medical doctor. Take a minute to watch it — and most importantly, help us continue this battle! To Watch the Ad and Donate — Go Here Now
Ok... take out the emotional language, and I really like the email. Someone is lying. Do you trust Obama, Nancy, Harry, Barney? How painful do they have to make it for you?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama Care, Nationalized Health and Euthanasia
Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? Health & Euthanasia. Well, it is. So why does the potentate, our high priest of humanism, feel it necessary to redistribute the wealth... I mean the health? He lives (as do most Christians) in a world that excludes God from the equation. Most Christians will give some statistics, or testimonies for reasons why we should not nationalize health care.
So, with Bible in hand, we must share the gospel (good news) with the world. This means that God has good news concerning, yes, Health Care. God's ways are not man's ways. The gospel is the good news calling all to repent and affirm what God says... in every realm of living. A Christian is not one who "prays a prayer," but one who is a "disciple" (learning all that Christ commands - Matthew 28.18-20). These commands include principles that affect the way that we look at health care.
As so many Christians, and pagans do, the "Christian Creed" on health care is one that falls WAY short of God's perspective. To see that which any atheist/polytheist could affirm click here. It is typical within Christianity today, for Christians to "emote" rather than present truth and build their view points based on Scripture (Matthew 7.23-27). This is why our contemporary evangelism is so shallow... "just add Jesus to your life, and everything will be alright."
Any talk of National Health Care should at least start with, "Did God establish the Government to steal from the rich to provide health care for all?" The straw men and red herring fallacies quickly emerge. "God wants you to love people! MY God cares about the poor!" Etc. Etc. ad infinitum...
YOUR god cares about the sick, does He? What about the next guy's god? What about Hitler's god? What about Dr. Kavorkian's god. Fashioning a god in your own image doesn't make your bar of soap god. There is ONE GOD. WHAT HE SAYS IS FINAL. He is not bound by political correctness, or public opinion.
The reason taking care of the helpless is the right thing to do is because God (of the Bible) said so, not because Gandhi said so. Gandhi can say whatever he wants, but he is still a man. You can worship Gandhi's god, but it is still a "man made god" and therefore worthless.
The question is NOT, "SHOULD we take care of the poor and weak," but, "HOW should we take care of them." Everyone knows we should take care of the poor and weak. It is NOT ok to spout, "God cares about the poor," and in the same paragraph proceed to ignore HOW He says to go about taking care of the poor." But as usual, the fallacies will multiply, and the hypocrites will continue to point their judging fingers at Christians who want to follow the Bible and say, "You just don't care! You speak against our man-centered answers! You stupid, old fashioned Christians are soooo judgmental!" I can still see Charles Barkley's face all snarled up accusing Christians... "I judge you Christians to be judgmental!"
Well... anyway... Any talk of health care reform ought to START (at least for us Christians) with the Bible. Taking from the rich and trying to ensure health coverage for all is not only unbiblical, but impossible. It will only invite God's judgment. Why? Because man cannot proceed through life as if God did not exist. We cannot invent our own ways of dealing with health care, as if God's principles did not apply. Ultimately, only God can provide literal, physical health coverage. We must repent, and acknowledge this fact. If the world doesn't like it, should that surprise you? Place trust in Christ. Dig into the Word to find the answers. Be willing to follow, even if it doesn't make sense (Proverb 3.5-6).
So, with Bible in hand, we must share the gospel (good news) with the world. This means that God has good news concerning, yes, Health Care. God's ways are not man's ways. The gospel is the good news calling all to repent and affirm what God says... in every realm of living. A Christian is not one who "prays a prayer," but one who is a "disciple" (learning all that Christ commands - Matthew 28.18-20). These commands include principles that affect the way that we look at health care.
As so many Christians, and pagans do, the "Christian Creed" on health care is one that falls WAY short of God's perspective. To see that which any atheist/polytheist could affirm click here. It is typical within Christianity today, for Christians to "emote" rather than present truth and build their view points based on Scripture (Matthew 7.23-27). This is why our contemporary evangelism is so shallow... "just add Jesus to your life, and everything will be alright."
Any talk of National Health Care should at least start with, "Did God establish the Government to steal from the rich to provide health care for all?" The straw men and red herring fallacies quickly emerge. "God wants you to love people! MY God cares about the poor!" Etc. Etc. ad infinitum...
YOUR god cares about the sick, does He? What about the next guy's god? What about Hitler's god? What about Dr. Kavorkian's god. Fashioning a god in your own image doesn't make your bar of soap god. There is ONE GOD. WHAT HE SAYS IS FINAL. He is not bound by political correctness, or public opinion.
The reason taking care of the helpless is the right thing to do is because God (of the Bible) said so, not because Gandhi said so. Gandhi can say whatever he wants, but he is still a man. You can worship Gandhi's god, but it is still a "man made god" and therefore worthless.
The question is NOT, "SHOULD we take care of the poor and weak," but, "HOW should we take care of them." Everyone knows we should take care of the poor and weak. It is NOT ok to spout, "God cares about the poor," and in the same paragraph proceed to ignore HOW He says to go about taking care of the poor." But as usual, the fallacies will multiply, and the hypocrites will continue to point their judging fingers at Christians who want to follow the Bible and say, "You just don't care! You speak against our man-centered answers! You stupid, old fashioned Christians are soooo judgmental!" I can still see Charles Barkley's face all snarled up accusing Christians... "I judge you Christians to be judgmental!"
Well... anyway... Any talk of health care reform ought to START (at least for us Christians) with the Bible. Taking from the rich and trying to ensure health coverage for all is not only unbiblical, but impossible. It will only invite God's judgment. Why? Because man cannot proceed through life as if God did not exist. We cannot invent our own ways of dealing with health care, as if God's principles did not apply. Ultimately, only God can provide literal, physical health coverage. We must repent, and acknowledge this fact. If the world doesn't like it, should that surprise you? Place trust in Christ. Dig into the Word to find the answers. Be willing to follow, even if it doesn't make sense (Proverb 3.5-6).
Friday, June 5, 2009
Will Your Son Say, "Dad... Why didn't You do something?"
Christian dads, don't miss this opportunity. With news paper in one hand, and Bible in the other, show them Obama appeasing the Muslims in Cairo. Then turn to Genesis 17.18-19. It can be a great family worship. The battles of today are the same as they were 4,000 years ago.
Muslims do two things:
Muslims do two things:
- Readily admit that their decisions are religion based.
- Trace their religion back to Ishmael (Genesis 17.18-19)
Shame on Christians. We do the exact opposite. We are so politically correct, we refuse to make "Religious based decisions." Therefore, we are practicing atheists. We'll show statistics, we'll cite historical societies, but we have not got the spine to say, "The Bible says so!" We are luke-warm, politically correct cowards. We have sold our birthright (Genesis 25.31). We are so entertained. As long as the state continues to give us our goodies, we'll go along and worship the golden calf (state). We have rejected our history. We willing gave American history over to the revisionists.
The battles of our day are religious to the core, yet Christians say, "No, Rob there is separation between church and state..." Tell the Muslims that. They know better. Everything man does results from his worldview. The way you look at life is your worldview. What you do, the reason you choose what you choose is based upon your worldview. Worldview is based upon a faith (religious) presupposition. The faith-based creationist looks at the same "facts" as the atheistic evolutionist. They both come to two different conclusions because they both presuppose something. Worldview in brief:
- What do you believe about God? (Super-natural can / cannot happen)
- What do you believe about man? (Man is sinful / Man is good)
- What is the problem? (sin, or economics, etc.)
- What is the answer? (found in the Bible / found in man's wisdom)
Some pertinent questions to find out whether or not culture has established your worldview, or Scripture has.
- Is your son on a little league team because scripture lead you to it, or culture?
- Are your kids in public school because Scripture lead you to it, or culture?
- Do your children date because Scripture lead you to it, or culture?
- Does your wife have a career because Scripture lead you to that, or culture?
Dads... all of life is a religious war (Genesis 3.15). There is no neutral ground (Luke 11.23). Get off the couch and into the battle! Teach your children (Ephesians 6.1-4). When Islam takes over, and liberty is gone, will your son have to look you in the eye and say, "Dad... why didn't you do something? Why didn't we chunk all those extras overboard, and get in the fight?"
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Words They Choose Are So Smooth
Smooth talkers weave their words in such a way as to make anyone who disagrees with them sound ridiculous. Politicians are that way. Today I heard 5 seconds of President Obama's speech to the Muslim community in Cairo. Who can disagree with the big broad themes he uses, like loving your neighbor, working together, etc. It is what is in the unspoken ideology that is the sum and substance of what I would really like to hear. Instead of big, broad themes that everyone can agree with, I would like to hear a politician say what he means, and mean what he says.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Will Next Month Be Adultery Pride Month?
It is interesting to see worldviews play themselves out. Our prevailing contemporary worldview is Moral Relativism. It is rooted in Humanism. Humanism is a faith, or religion, which exalts man over God. Humanism says, "Man is the measure of what is right or wrong, good or bad." In other words, each person gets to decide for themselves what is good for themselves.
Most "Christians" today have prayed a prayer that says something like this. "Dear Jesus, please forgive me for my sins. Please come into my heart and save me..." Ok, that is the short version. But then they continue to live lives of humanism. We may as well say they are atheistic Christians. Just ask a Christian why they believe what they do. Your response is likely to be as humanistic as any pagan. They might say something like, "Well... its my opinion," or "For me, it would be wrong, but I don't know about for them..." or "This passage means TO ME that..."
The point is biblically speaking, a Christian's worldview should START with God. Who cares about our personal opinions? Christians don't want to decide what is right / wrong, they want to please Jesus Christ.
How does this relate to Obama's celebration of Gay-Pride? Being gay is a choice, the Bible says so (Read Romans 1). As Christians, why are my friends defending homosexuality as if it were a gender-type. God didn't make people that way. It is a perversion of God's design. Biblically speaking, it is a sinful lifestyle, just as adultry, murder, child-porn, etc.
Most "Christians" today have prayed a prayer that says something like this. "Dear Jesus, please forgive me for my sins. Please come into my heart and save me..." Ok, that is the short version. But then they continue to live lives of humanism. We may as well say they are atheistic Christians. Just ask a Christian why they believe what they do. Your response is likely to be as humanistic as any pagan. They might say something like, "Well... its my opinion," or "For me, it would be wrong, but I don't know about for them..." or "This passage means TO ME that..."
The point is biblically speaking, a Christian's worldview should START with God. Who cares about our personal opinions? Christians don't want to decide what is right / wrong, they want to please Jesus Christ.
How does this relate to Obama's celebration of Gay-Pride? Being gay is a choice, the Bible says so (Read Romans 1). As Christians, why are my friends defending homosexuality as if it were a gender-type. God didn't make people that way. It is a perversion of God's design. Biblically speaking, it is a sinful lifestyle, just as adultry, murder, child-porn, etc.
Liar Economics
ABC parrots White House: "The White House says that the stimulus plan is already starting to have an effect on job creation. And they listed a bunch of the jobs in their new report, '100 Days, 100 Projects.' ... Critics have long said the administration overstates the impact of the stimulus. ... Without question, the stimulus is having an affect on some job creations." --ABC's Jake Tapper
This is another example of spin. I hear things like this and I have to wonder how the propaganda machine is churning out its latest lies. Putting our own personal spin on words is a child’s game whereby children try to manipulate their parents to get what they want.
“Job creation” might better be called “job confiscation.” Down the street is one of our favorite discount grocery stores. I was getting Starbucks for 3 bucks a bag! Now they are going out of business. Hmm… I wonder why. The owner says that someone out East outbid him for the products, and he can’t make money off the remaining supply. The owner has no idea who this company is… they won’t say.
But consider this scenario: A newly formed government community service provider receives stimulus money. Let’s call this government agency the Big East Government Community Service Providers, or BEGS Community Service, for short. Now they create some jobs to facilitate the work. They have more money to invest in getting the discount food product, so they make a much higher bid. Then BEGS Community Service ships the product, spending more tax dollars, and by the time it reaches them out east… more product damage, more waste, more excess spending, etc. But they don’t care… it’s government money… oops, I mean, your money.
Meanwhile another small business bites the dust. Our favorite discount store is dying a quick death. They are now selling off what they have left and going out of business. They are one of the many who are being killed by the socialistic policy of an overreaching state.
Yes, jobs were probably created. But they failed to mention how many were destroyed in this government transfer of wealth. It leads to something alright… bigger government, and dying liberty. As government jobs are created, private sector jobs are destroyed.
This is an UN-Biblical approach to the responsibilities of Civil Government. Let us teach our children (Deuteronomy 6.4-10) God’s ways of economics, so that when America’s Tower of Babel comes tumbling down, they will be ready to step in and present God’s truth. Yes, this means evangelism and being salt in the culture (earth). Maybe the church will become a culture changer instead of adapting to the culture.
This is another example of spin. I hear things like this and I have to wonder how the propaganda machine is churning out its latest lies. Putting our own personal spin on words is a child’s game whereby children try to manipulate their parents to get what they want.
“Job creation” might better be called “job confiscation.” Down the street is one of our favorite discount grocery stores. I was getting Starbucks for 3 bucks a bag! Now they are going out of business. Hmm… I wonder why. The owner says that someone out East outbid him for the products, and he can’t make money off the remaining supply. The owner has no idea who this company is… they won’t say.
But consider this scenario: A newly formed government community service provider receives stimulus money. Let’s call this government agency the Big East Government Community Service Providers, or BEGS Community Service, for short. Now they create some jobs to facilitate the work. They have more money to invest in getting the discount food product, so they make a much higher bid. Then BEGS Community Service ships the product, spending more tax dollars, and by the time it reaches them out east… more product damage, more waste, more excess spending, etc. But they don’t care… it’s government money… oops, I mean, your money.
Meanwhile another small business bites the dust. Our favorite discount store is dying a quick death. They are now selling off what they have left and going out of business. They are one of the many who are being killed by the socialistic policy of an overreaching state.
Yes, jobs were probably created. But they failed to mention how many were destroyed in this government transfer of wealth. It leads to something alright… bigger government, and dying liberty. As government jobs are created, private sector jobs are destroyed.
This is an UN-Biblical approach to the responsibilities of Civil Government. Let us teach our children (Deuteronomy 6.4-10) God’s ways of economics, so that when America’s Tower of Babel comes tumbling down, they will be ready to step in and present God’s truth. Yes, this means evangelism and being salt in the culture (earth). Maybe the church will become a culture changer instead of adapting to the culture.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Obama's Faith and Homosexuality
Arriana Huffington points out that the current political issues are changing the climate of our political conversations. No longer do the issues seem to be between Republican and Democrat, they are increasingly taking on a "Right, and wrong" tone. Thank you Mrs. Huffington for pointing out what should be obvious. Everything is ultimately a religious issue. No man can escape this. Either you believe there is
- No God (Atheist)
- One God (Monotheist)
- Plural Gods (Polytheist)
Therefore, who will decide what is right, and what is wrong?
- You
- Your God
- Your Gods
No one can escape this... all men are religious.
For a look at Obama's faith:
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=551240Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Why Do Christian Parents Give Their Children to the NEA to Educate Them?
Parents are being purposely excluded from multi-sexual issues in schools, as seen in mounting evidence from California school districts, the National Educational Association, and more.
"This is an effort to force parents out of the classroom. If it's not this way in your school, it is only a matter of time before your school is confronted with efforts to exclude parents," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.
Kindergarteners learn the definition of "gay," "lesbian," and "transgender." Students learn about different kinds of families, including kids raised by a mom and dad, grandparents, and same-sex parents. In all age groups, the multisexual message is being woven into everyday instruction. State law now mandates that schools accept homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual behaviors. San Francisco Unified School District explicitly interprets state law to mean that the district does not need to notify parents about many multisexual discussions in school curriculum and activities.
In a website launched just this month, SFUSD wrote, "As long as human sexuality is not the focus of the discussion, parent notification is not required." It claims a right to teach about same-sex romantic attraction, same-sex parenting, and much more -- starting in kindergarten. "California leads the nation, and on this issue, San Francisco is leading California. Other school districts and influential organizations are pushing to follow the same path," England said. "Do you want San Francisco school policies coming to your school district next?" she said. The NEA issued standards for multisexual issues several years ago, which instruct school employees to "respect confidentiality." "This includes not telling other colleagues or a student's parents or guardians that someone has 'come out' to you without a specific reason," it said. "The NEA says that parents -- who brought these children into the world and care for them daily -- may 'not react well' and even throw their kids out of the house," England said. "This is arrogance. It says schools have more right to know about students' sexuality than parents."
What if parents must be notified? School employees should attempt to "explore parents' likely reaction with the student first." "Come up with strategies for worst case scenarios. Do not blindside students by telling family members without their knowledge," advised the NEA School Employee's Guide to Gay, Lesbian,
Bisexual, & Transgender Issues. "What a burden on teachers. They must call Bob 'Betty' at school, but woe to them if they slip and say 'Betty' in conversation with that child's own parent," England said. People must understand this is not a fringe attitude. Parental exclusion is being officially, systematically pushed for the so-called "safety" of kindergarten to high school students. "Educators want students to totally embrace 'healthy attitudes' on multisexuality, instead of outdated traditional values -- without getting parents knowing it," England said.
AB 537 added sexual orientation and gender identity to the nondiscrimination provisions in California's Education Code. San Francisco Unified School District and others interpret what this law means, as in a new website focusing on multisexual issues on the day to day level. "If you find an action or use of language offensive/harassing then, it is," SFUSD wrote on its website. "We all have a right to work and learn in safe environments." The problem with this is an apparent lack of protection for students and school employees who hold traditional values, if anyone finds those views offensive. What if a fifth grade student unintentionally "offends" a classmate by saying that he supports husband-wife marriage? When someone is harassed, disciplinary procedures can range up to student expulsion or employee dismissal, according to the SFUSD Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook. Many other districts also have policies banning harassment. As districts are pushed to implement laws like AB 537 and the more recent SB 777, look for more penalizing of traditional values. Read SFUSD advise on AB 537
Carlos is a public school student who decided that that he is actually a female. Society made a mistake, he thinks, when it assigned him to the male gender at birth. Since he now wants to go by "Carla," this will be noted as a nickname in his school database's preferred name field. His parents, however, will never be told by the school. The Los Angeles Unified School District used this fictional student to describe its policy on transgender students, in conversation with a CRI staff member. "We would see Carlos as female and treat him as female, because that's his gender identity," an LAUSD official said. "Even parents with like the best intentions for their child can end up harming the child in some way," he said, explaining the policy against telling parents. Possible harms include physical injury, putting minors out on the streets -- or trying to change students' minds on transsexuality. "The message is it's risky to be honest with parents, but at school, you can be your real self. These educators help students deceive parents and lead a double life," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.
LAUSD has been a transgender policy leader in California. In policies on locker rooms, restrooms, and athletics, it permits students to go wherever their "gender identity" dictates. Influential groups embrace the same philosophy. California Safe Schools Coalition issued a "model directive" for schools to use when dealing with transgender students. When a male student says he is a female (or vice versa), it tells schools to provide access to a restroom "that corresponds to the student's gender identity." The same rule applies to sports teams and gym, dress codes, gender-segregated support and counseling groups, and more. This language requires boys, for example, to be allowed on girls' softball teams. "The Coalition is looking at ways to implement the directive. It's only a matter of time before each school is confronted. Parents need to ask themselves if they are equipped and educated to deal with what eventually will be coming to their own school districts," England said. A male student in Northern California is currently taking legal action on this issue. He was forced to change in a boys' locker room, while a female student got dressed in the same room. "I'm assuming this is what happens when a girl perceives herself as a boy and wants to use the boys' locker room. This is where 'anti-discrimination' policy is headed," England said. State laws on transsexuality, and district policies, apply to even the youngest students.
"This is an effort to force parents out of the classroom. If it's not this way in your school, it is only a matter of time before your school is confronted with efforts to exclude parents," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.
Kindergarteners learn the definition of "gay," "lesbian," and "transgender." Students learn about different kinds of families, including kids raised by a mom and dad, grandparents, and same-sex parents. In all age groups, the multisexual message is being woven into everyday instruction. State law now mandates that schools accept homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual behaviors. San Francisco Unified School District explicitly interprets state law to mean that the district does not need to notify parents about many multisexual discussions in school curriculum and activities.
In a website launched just this month, SFUSD wrote, "As long as human sexuality is not the focus of the discussion, parent notification is not required." It claims a right to teach about same-sex romantic attraction, same-sex parenting, and much more -- starting in kindergarten. "California leads the nation, and on this issue, San Francisco is leading California. Other school districts and influential organizations are pushing to follow the same path," England said. "Do you want San Francisco school policies coming to your school district next?" she said. The NEA issued standards for multisexual issues several years ago, which instruct school employees to "respect confidentiality." "This includes not telling other colleagues or a student's parents or guardians that someone has 'come out' to you without a specific reason," it said. "The NEA says that parents -- who brought these children into the world and care for them daily -- may 'not react well' and even throw their kids out of the house," England said. "This is arrogance. It says schools have more right to know about students' sexuality than parents."
What if parents must be notified? School employees should attempt to "explore parents' likely reaction with the student first." "Come up with strategies for worst case scenarios. Do not blindside students by telling family members without their knowledge," advised the NEA School Employee's Guide to Gay, Lesbian,
Bisexual, & Transgender Issues. "What a burden on teachers. They must call Bob 'Betty' at school, but woe to them if they slip and say 'Betty' in conversation with that child's own parent," England said. People must understand this is not a fringe attitude. Parental exclusion is being officially, systematically pushed for the so-called "safety" of kindergarten to high school students. "Educators want students to totally embrace 'healthy attitudes' on multisexuality, instead of outdated traditional values -- without getting parents knowing it," England said.
AB 537 added sexual orientation and gender identity to the nondiscrimination provisions in California's Education Code. San Francisco Unified School District and others interpret what this law means, as in a new website focusing on multisexual issues on the day to day level. "If you find an action or use of language offensive/harassing then, it is," SFUSD wrote on its website. "We all have a right to work and learn in safe environments." The problem with this is an apparent lack of protection for students and school employees who hold traditional values, if anyone finds those views offensive. What if a fifth grade student unintentionally "offends" a classmate by saying that he supports husband-wife marriage? When someone is harassed, disciplinary procedures can range up to student expulsion or employee dismissal, according to the SFUSD Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook. Many other districts also have policies banning harassment. As districts are pushed to implement laws like AB 537 and the more recent SB 777, look for more penalizing of traditional values. Read SFUSD advise on AB 537
Carlos is a public school student who decided that that he is actually a female. Society made a mistake, he thinks, when it assigned him to the male gender at birth. Since he now wants to go by "Carla," this will be noted as a nickname in his school database's preferred name field. His parents, however, will never be told by the school. The Los Angeles Unified School District used this fictional student to describe its policy on transgender students, in conversation with a CRI staff member. "We would see Carlos as female and treat him as female, because that's his gender identity," an LAUSD official said. "Even parents with like the best intentions for their child can end up harming the child in some way," he said, explaining the policy against telling parents. Possible harms include physical injury, putting minors out on the streets -- or trying to change students' minds on transsexuality. "The message is it's risky to be honest with parents, but at school, you can be your real self. These educators help students deceive parents and lead a double life," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute.
LAUSD has been a transgender policy leader in California. In policies on locker rooms, restrooms, and athletics, it permits students to go wherever their "gender identity" dictates. Influential groups embrace the same philosophy. California Safe Schools Coalition issued a "model directive" for schools to use when dealing with transgender students. When a male student says he is a female (or vice versa), it tells schools to provide access to a restroom "that corresponds to the student's gender identity." The same rule applies to sports teams and gym, dress codes, gender-segregated support and counseling groups, and more. This language requires boys, for example, to be allowed on girls' softball teams. "The Coalition is looking at ways to implement the directive. It's only a matter of time before each school is confronted. Parents need to ask themselves if they are equipped and educated to deal with what eventually will be coming to their own school districts," England said. A male student in Northern California is currently taking legal action on this issue. He was forced to change in a boys' locker room, while a female student got dressed in the same room. "I'm assuming this is what happens when a girl perceives herself as a boy and wants to use the boys' locker room. This is where 'anti-discrimination' policy is headed," England said. State laws on transsexuality, and district policies, apply to even the youngest students.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Trying to Keep Up With The Radical Agenda?
My head is spinning trying to keep up with all the things that the current administration is doing... Well, not really. It is nothing surprising. If it is liberal, anti-God, anti-family, and humanistic, then it is the current administration's agenda. I might add, that I think much of America wants Obama's agenda also. "They won."
Blogging provides not only an outlet, but a storing house for great resources.
Blogging provides not only an outlet, but a storing house for great resources.
- To find out more on the flood of Abortion activity: http://www.azpolicy.org/IsThisTheChangeWeWant%3F
- Concerning abortion bills which "just happen to slide through on late Friday afternoons:
1) Mexico City Policy Repeal- On Friday, January 23rd, President Obama signed an order overturning the pro-life Mexico City Policy. This decision was announced only two days after thousands converged on Washington for the annual March for Life. Obama’s reversal of the pro-life Mexico City Policy allows millions of your taxpayer dollars to fund international abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
2) Rollback of Conscience Protections for Medical Professionals- On Friday, February 27th, the Obama Administration announced its intention to undo important conscience protection rules for doctors, nurses and other medical providers. Now health care workers who choose to follow their conscience and refuse to participate in abortion procedures will have little recourse if they are discriminated against by their employer.
3) Embryonic Stem Cell Executive Order- On Friday March 6th, President Obama announced he was going to sign an executive order allowing for taxpayer funding for human embryonic stem cell research, despite the fact that this type of research has shown no signs of success. He also completely reversed previous policy directing federal dollars toward ethical stem cell research that does not destroy innocent human life.
Another good news source concerning all the issues: http://www.frcaction.org/
Will Parents Be Allowed To Make Their Kids Eat Broccoli?
By what authority do 18 unelected United Nations officials decide what parents in the United States should do concerning their children?
To see some quick videos concerning the issue:
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nML7PBnoH0o
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL0yu2e3HjQ
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmcxlnEp3Mk&feature=related
To see the UN Treaty concerning "The Rights of the Child." This is the treaty which Hillary Clinton is currently pushing:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
To see "things that you need to know" about the Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC): http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?fa=News.View&News_id=83e514a1-da30-4fd9-8455-e2e9775341e6&Label_id=&Year=2009&Month=4 Constitutional lawyer Mike Farris is doing a great job staying on top of this.
For more information concerning the issue: http://www.parentalrights.org/
To see some quick videos concerning the issue:
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nML7PBnoH0o
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL0yu2e3HjQ
3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmcxlnEp3Mk&feature=related
To see the UN Treaty concerning "The Rights of the Child." This is the treaty which Hillary Clinton is currently pushing:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
To see "things that you need to know" about the Convention on the Right of the Child (CRC): http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?fa=News.View&News_id=83e514a1-da30-4fd9-8455-e2e9775341e6&Label_id=&Year=2009&Month=4 Constitutional lawyer Mike Farris is doing a great job staying on top of this.
For more information concerning the issue: http://www.parentalrights.org/
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thank You Glenn Beck for Pointing Out the Truth
The administration is trying to make it sound like a huge budget cut, while you don't have to be a mathematician to see this is chump change. If a family that made $100,000 were faced with a budget gap of $34,000 -- the family would have to cut $3 a year to equal the Obama cuts. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to build up how big of a cut this was with the standard '$100 million is a lot where I come from' line, until Jake Tapper interjected by pointing out Gibbs himself just a couple of weeks ago said that $8 billion in earmarks is a miniscule amount. How do government officials get away with such blatant spin, and how do they know they will get away with it? Glenn explains
You can read about America in Isaiah chapters 1-3. Obviously, those chapters are specifically about Israel, but certainly America indirectly qualifies
This exerpt taken from a recent free email which Glenn Beck sends out.
You can read about America in Isaiah chapters 1-3. Obviously, those chapters are specifically about Israel, but certainly America indirectly qualifies
This exerpt taken from a recent free email which Glenn Beck sends out.
Monday, April 13, 2009
6 Biblical Reasons For Rejecting Socialism
- Exodus 20.15, 17: God said, "thou shalt not steal... thou shalt not covet..." God established private property laws, which, not even the government can cross.
- Leviticus 19.15: God said, "you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great... (rich)" Justice requires equality BEFORE THE LAW, not equality of incomes. God never gives the government the responsibility to make incomes equal, in fact He does quite the opposite. He commands JUSTICE.
- 1 Kings 21: Government has no right to confiscate private property.
- Luke 19.11-27: Every man is personally responsible for the resources that God has put at his disposal. It is each individual's responsibility to invest his resources as he sees fit... not have the government take his resources and redistribute it as it (government) sees fit... that is not the government's job.
- 1 Timothy 5.1-16: It is the church's job to take care of the widows and the orphans.
- Romans 13.1-7: There, Paul tells us the proper role of the government... TO RESTRAIN EVIL. That is the jurisdiction of the State. It is the secular humanist that needs a big government because he must resort to salvation by legislation. God does the opposite. The gospel comes to a man, calls him to repent and serve Jesus Christ, gives him a heart that wants to give in Jesus name, and then calls him to personal responsibility with all of his resources. God gives the government a role, but it is not to save man, or change the heart of man, or to make man want to give... that takes the gospel of Jesus Christ working in the heart of man. Humanism is a top-down government enforcement of "charity." Christianity is a bottom-up, individual willingly giving of charity. The first one is forced and coerced by big government, and the second is freely offered by individuals. The first one is socialism. The second is capitalism ("capital" by definition is the property that belongs to individual people which THEY invest).
So, when we put Romans 13.1-7 in context with the whole Bible, we cannot possibly come up with socialism. Romans 13 limits the role of government to restraining evil. Yes, they can tax. But even then, they must let God define what is right to tax. They also must let God define what is considered evil. For example, abortion. Even if the government says it is OK to abort, the Bible would say otherwise.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Bill Moyers Interview With William K. Black
William K. Black is proffessor of law and economics at University of Missouri, Ks. At one time Mr. Black was a supporter of Barak Obama, and now is a whistle blower.
http://www.infowars.com/bill-moyers-on-the-bankster-economic-crisis/
http://www.infowars.com/bill-moyers-on-the-bankster-economic-crisis/
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Liberal Fascism and Big Business
“Upton Sinclair… unleashed populist rage against the cruel excesses of the meatpacking industry, and as a result Teddy Roosevelt and his fellow progressives boldly reined in an industry run amok… This narrative lives on as generations of journalism students dream of exposing corporate malfeasance and prompting government-imposed “reform.” The problem is that it’s totally untrue, a fact Sinclair freely acknowledged. ‘The Federal inspection of meat was, historically, established at the packers’ request,' Sinclair wrote in 1906…” Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 291
"Socialists believe in government ownership of the means of production. Fascists believed in government control of privately owned businesses, which is much more the style of this government. That way, politicians can intervene whenever they feel like it and then, when their interventions turn out badly, summon executives from the private sector before Congress and denounce them on nationwide television." --economist Thomas Sowell Wednesday Chronicle - Vol. 09 No. 14
"Socialists believe in government ownership of the means of production. Fascists believed in government control of privately owned businesses, which is much more the style of this government. That way, politicians can intervene whenever they feel like it and then, when their interventions turn out badly, summon executives from the private sector before Congress and denounce them on nationwide television." --economist Thomas Sowell Wednesday Chronicle - Vol. 09 No. 14
"She Has A Great Personality..."
Oh, the love of superficiality. I did not want to hear that I was being set up for a date with a girl who “had a great personality.” We all knew that the REAL underlying statement was that she was nothing to look at on the outside. I recognize now, what I really knew then… I was as shallow as a bird bath.
Listen to George Stephanopoulos reveal his depth (or lack there of).
"The president's stagecraft on this trip and his star power have really held up all through his trip to Europe so far. As Jake [Tapper] pointed out, though, on the substance the president hasn't gotten all he wanted either at the G-20 or at this NATO summit, but he's done a good job of managing expectations." --ABC's George Stephanopoulos Wednesday Chronicle - Vol. 09 No. 14
Uh… George, sir… that is because HE HAS NO SUBSTANCE. When your whole gig is based upon slight of hand, there is not much which lies beneath the surface which can be trusted. The President has repeatedly said one thing and done another. The only thing under the “pretty exterior” is the ugliness of big government erosion of the liberties she is supposed to be protecting. The Bible calls this tyranny… OK, the word “tyranny” is not used, but look at the context of 1 Samuel 8. The context is tyranny over the people… this is what they wanted… and this is what America wants… America would rather have men tyrannize her than repent, and ask God to rule over her… as our Dollar Bill so hypocritically states.
In America we are more concerned with stage presence than truth. We delight in form at the exclusion of substance. If a presidential candidate speaks truth but isn't "well spoken" we will compromise. Yes, he should strive to be well spoken so he can articulate good reasoning. But, to resort to trusting in a secondary strength like personality is to plant a man on shaky ground. This is akin to a professional ball player who relies on steroids to get the advantage, or an alcoholic relying on booze to give him courage. Eventually your cover is blown.
I remember those days well, when I abused some substance so that I would have courage to say what I would not say when I was sober. Weak men lean on externals because they have no internal strength of character to deliver them! There was a day when men were men. Today, men in Washington can be bought... and they can be bought at a price which is whatever lobbyist group will pay the highest price. Such is a world devoid of character...
Listen to George Stephanopoulos reveal his depth (or lack there of).
"The president's stagecraft on this trip and his star power have really held up all through his trip to Europe so far. As Jake [Tapper] pointed out, though, on the substance the president hasn't gotten all he wanted either at the G-20 or at this NATO summit, but he's done a good job of managing expectations." --ABC's George Stephanopoulos Wednesday Chronicle - Vol. 09 No. 14
Uh… George, sir… that is because HE HAS NO SUBSTANCE. When your whole gig is based upon slight of hand, there is not much which lies beneath the surface which can be trusted. The President has repeatedly said one thing and done another. The only thing under the “pretty exterior” is the ugliness of big government erosion of the liberties she is supposed to be protecting. The Bible calls this tyranny… OK, the word “tyranny” is not used, but look at the context of 1 Samuel 8. The context is tyranny over the people… this is what they wanted… and this is what America wants… America would rather have men tyrannize her than repent, and ask God to rule over her… as our Dollar Bill so hypocritically states.
In America we are more concerned with stage presence than truth. We delight in form at the exclusion of substance. If a presidential candidate speaks truth but isn't "well spoken" we will compromise. Yes, he should strive to be well spoken so he can articulate good reasoning. But, to resort to trusting in a secondary strength like personality is to plant a man on shaky ground. This is akin to a professional ball player who relies on steroids to get the advantage, or an alcoholic relying on booze to give him courage. Eventually your cover is blown.
I remember those days well, when I abused some substance so that I would have courage to say what I would not say when I was sober. Weak men lean on externals because they have no internal strength of character to deliver them! There was a day when men were men. Today, men in Washington can be bought... and they can be bought at a price which is whatever lobbyist group will pay the highest price. Such is a world devoid of character...
Monday, April 6, 2009
Economic Stimulation, or Economic Confiscation?
In 2007 Thomas Sowell wrote (concerning Big Government setting price controls),
In new York City, for example, many buildings have been abandoned after their owners found it impossible to collect enough rent to cover the costs of services that they are required by law to provide… such buildings often end up vacant and boarded up, though still physically sound enough to house people, if they continued to be maintained and repaired. The number of abandoned buildings taken over by the New York City government over the years runs into the thousands. It has been estimated that there are at least four times as many abandoned housing units in New York City as there are homeless people living on the streets there. Homelessness is not due to a physical scarcity of housing, but to a [government controlled] price related shortage, which is painfully real nonetheless. Such inefficiency in the allocation of resources means that people are sleeping outdoors on the pavement on cold winter nights – some dying of exposure – while the means of housing them already exist, but are not being used because of laws designed to make housing “affordable.” … It also illustrates that the goal of a law – “affordable housing,” in this case – tells us nothing about its actual consequence.[1]
Once again we see misplaced faith and emotion driven policies are a huge mistake. What matters is God’s laws. It is not the government’s job to be the savior of man. It is the government’s job to protect liberty. In how many town hall meetings have people cried out to President Obama (instead of God) as if he was the Savior? The government’s purpose is stated by God (Romans 13.1-7), and to go beyond that purpose places our nation in the path of judgment… just ask those who sought to build the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).
Our public schools have trained their students well. “Don’t base anything upon rational thinking… just be emotion driven. Poor people are on the streets, and greedy capitalists are the problem. Look at these poor people **As they show pictures of poor people** Government should do something.”
Train your children to ask, “Why?” “Who says that it is the government’s role to do something?” Again, all agree that something should be done to aid the plight of the poor. But, what should be done, and in what way should it be done? That is the question.
How can you teach that taking care of the poor is even the right thing to do if you deny the very existence of God? If a public school teaches the religion of atheism, (God is irrelevant to life) then who decides the standards of what is good? Does Oprah decide that it is good and right to take care of the poor? Why not adopt Hitler’s standards and allow “extreme exposure” to exterminate the surplus population of the weaker race?
Whatever has the authority to say something is morally wrong is the standard. Is the standard for caring for the poor, Oprah Winfrey? Barak Obama? The party with the most votes? No… the standard for right and wrong is Jesus Christ. His word outlines the plan for economic growth which will take care of the poor. This Word of God is trustworthy compared to the confiscation of wealth done by trusting in Big Government to save (socialism, fascism, communism, etc.).
"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism." --French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
For Obama's confiscation of GM: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31342
For government intervention on forcing loans: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031
[1] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics, (Basic Books Publishing, New York, 2007) p. 46.
In new York City, for example, many buildings have been abandoned after their owners found it impossible to collect enough rent to cover the costs of services that they are required by law to provide… such buildings often end up vacant and boarded up, though still physically sound enough to house people, if they continued to be maintained and repaired. The number of abandoned buildings taken over by the New York City government over the years runs into the thousands. It has been estimated that there are at least four times as many abandoned housing units in New York City as there are homeless people living on the streets there. Homelessness is not due to a physical scarcity of housing, but to a [government controlled] price related shortage, which is painfully real nonetheless. Such inefficiency in the allocation of resources means that people are sleeping outdoors on the pavement on cold winter nights – some dying of exposure – while the means of housing them already exist, but are not being used because of laws designed to make housing “affordable.” … It also illustrates that the goal of a law – “affordable housing,” in this case – tells us nothing about its actual consequence.[1]
Once again we see misplaced faith and emotion driven policies are a huge mistake. What matters is God’s laws. It is not the government’s job to be the savior of man. It is the government’s job to protect liberty. In how many town hall meetings have people cried out to President Obama (instead of God) as if he was the Savior? The government’s purpose is stated by God (Romans 13.1-7), and to go beyond that purpose places our nation in the path of judgment… just ask those who sought to build the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11).
Our public schools have trained their students well. “Don’t base anything upon rational thinking… just be emotion driven. Poor people are on the streets, and greedy capitalists are the problem. Look at these poor people **As they show pictures of poor people** Government should do something.”
Train your children to ask, “Why?” “Who says that it is the government’s role to do something?” Again, all agree that something should be done to aid the plight of the poor. But, what should be done, and in what way should it be done? That is the question.
How can you teach that taking care of the poor is even the right thing to do if you deny the very existence of God? If a public school teaches the religion of atheism, (God is irrelevant to life) then who decides the standards of what is good? Does Oprah decide that it is good and right to take care of the poor? Why not adopt Hitler’s standards and allow “extreme exposure” to exterminate the surplus population of the weaker race?
Whatever has the authority to say something is morally wrong is the standard. Is the standard for caring for the poor, Oprah Winfrey? Barak Obama? The party with the most votes? No… the standard for right and wrong is Jesus Christ. His word outlines the plan for economic growth which will take care of the poor. This Word of God is trustworthy compared to the confiscation of wealth done by trusting in Big Government to save (socialism, fascism, communism, etc.).
"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism." --French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
For Obama's confiscation of GM: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31342
For government intervention on forcing loans: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94031
[1] Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics, (Basic Books Publishing, New York, 2007) p. 46.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Government Under A Rule of... WHOSE law?
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." James Madison, Federalist No. 51
This is exactly why the Bible lays out an Absolute Truth standard of what is right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly. There must be a rule of law which is outside the shifting opinions of unscrupulous men. This is why Exodus 18.21-22 would lay out a standard by which our leaders are qualified. According to those standards our current administration is NOT qualified. These are not standards which are too difficult... namely that our leaders be trustworthy, fear God, and cannot be bribed by special interest groups.
Once again... sad. We hate God's laws so much, that we would rather be subject to tyrants than to be governed by the Bible. Our founding fathers didn't think this way.
People often say, "The Bible laws are just too radical." Please consider this truth by Dresden James
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
quotes taken from http://patriotpost.us/
Another example is Obama's current pick the State Department Legal Advisor, Harold Koh see: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?page=0
This is exactly what happens when there is no set standard for truth. Muslim law will rule in the United States. Or maybe the ancient Hindu practice of sacrificing wives when husbands die... does that seem loving? That is what happens when we reject God's law for man's reason.
This is exactly why the Bible lays out an Absolute Truth standard of what is right and wrong, good and bad, beautiful and ugly. There must be a rule of law which is outside the shifting opinions of unscrupulous men. This is why Exodus 18.21-22 would lay out a standard by which our leaders are qualified. According to those standards our current administration is NOT qualified. These are not standards which are too difficult... namely that our leaders be trustworthy, fear God, and cannot be bribed by special interest groups.
Once again... sad. We hate God's laws so much, that we would rather be subject to tyrants than to be governed by the Bible. Our founding fathers didn't think this way.
People often say, "The Bible laws are just too radical." Please consider this truth by Dresden James
"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
quotes taken from http://patriotpost.us/
Another example is Obama's current pick the State Department Legal Advisor, Harold Koh see: http://www.nypost.com/seven/03302009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obamas_most_perilous_legal_pick_161961.htm?page=0
This is exactly what happens when there is no set standard for truth. Muslim law will rule in the United States. Or maybe the ancient Hindu practice of sacrificing wives when husbands die... does that seem loving? That is what happens when we reject God's law for man's reason.
It Is Not a Famine of Food, But of Truth
If Absolute Truth standards were applied across the board, people would be accountable. If people were held accountable, they would either be more responsible or fail. Failure is an option. More importantly, failure is a necessity. This is called stewardship. Every man must be responsible to God for the investment of his own resources. When the government tries to be the savior of men, it messes life up for everyone. When the bureaucrats decide the prices for business you will always have excess and waste in some areas, and famines in other areas.
When famine hits the land because we have refused God's law, we will not learn. "A rod for the fool's back," says the scripture. The scriptures [Absolute Truth] say that having children are a blessing, and debt is a curse. We reject blessings, and apply for curses. Absolute Truth standards (Bible) have been written to show us the laws of the universe... both the ethical, and the metaphysical. We would rather have man's laws and famine. We hate the thought of submission. We love our autonomy.
Although God says that the role of government is to punish evil (Romans 13.1-7), the Bible does not tell the government to punish greed. While civil government must punish crime (theft), it must not seek to punish sin of the heart (greed). While the government must ensure justice in the markets (punish coercion, etc.), it must not set prices. It is the individual that God holds accountable as a steward of his own resources. It is not necessarily greed that causes him to seek the highest amount for his goods and services. It is good stewardship to get the most that you can for your products.
It is not a capitalist system that bails out corporations, and then steals back corprate head's bonuses. Again, we see the difficulty of trying to sail a ship with no rudder.
We as Christians have led the world astray by spurning God's laws. When economic hard times come, we spiritualize our hardsip and say, "The Lord is teaching me patience," or "This is just a trial that God wants me to grow through." While these are true, we ought to also be asking, "In what ways might I be violating God's laws?" If God says that the debtor is the lender's slave (Proverb 22.7), then should I not blame myself for my imposing mountain of debt? It wasn't God who sold me into 30 years of mortgage slavery. It wasn't God who ran up a credit card. This is happening on a national level. We are now a nation of slaves.
Because God is gracious and His judgments sometimes take years to be doled out, we think that we are fine. Judgment is here. With each bailout the nation confesses Obama (and big government) as the savior. God will not be mocked. If we go against God's ways (big government usurping authority... assuming responsibilities that God assigned to individuals) we will pay a dear price for generations to come... well... I guess that has already been decided... The judgement is the bailout. We just heaped on a whole lotta' judgment...
When famine hits the land because we have refused God's law, we will not learn. "A rod for the fool's back," says the scripture. The scriptures [Absolute Truth] say that having children are a blessing, and debt is a curse. We reject blessings, and apply for curses. Absolute Truth standards (Bible) have been written to show us the laws of the universe... both the ethical, and the metaphysical. We would rather have man's laws and famine. We hate the thought of submission. We love our autonomy.
Although God says that the role of government is to punish evil (Romans 13.1-7), the Bible does not tell the government to punish greed. While civil government must punish crime (theft), it must not seek to punish sin of the heart (greed). While the government must ensure justice in the markets (punish coercion, etc.), it must not set prices. It is the individual that God holds accountable as a steward of his own resources. It is not necessarily greed that causes him to seek the highest amount for his goods and services. It is good stewardship to get the most that you can for your products.
It is not a capitalist system that bails out corporations, and then steals back corprate head's bonuses. Again, we see the difficulty of trying to sail a ship with no rudder.
We as Christians have led the world astray by spurning God's laws. When economic hard times come, we spiritualize our hardsip and say, "The Lord is teaching me patience," or "This is just a trial that God wants me to grow through." While these are true, we ought to also be asking, "In what ways might I be violating God's laws?" If God says that the debtor is the lender's slave (Proverb 22.7), then should I not blame myself for my imposing mountain of debt? It wasn't God who sold me into 30 years of mortgage slavery. It wasn't God who ran up a credit card. This is happening on a national level. We are now a nation of slaves.
Because God is gracious and His judgments sometimes take years to be doled out, we think that we are fine. Judgment is here. With each bailout the nation confesses Obama (and big government) as the savior. God will not be mocked. If we go against God's ways (big government usurping authority... assuming responsibilities that God assigned to individuals) we will pay a dear price for generations to come... well... I guess that has already been decided... The judgement is the bailout. We just heaped on a whole lotta' judgment...
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Law
Law... The etymology of the word goes back to "layer, stroke, something layed down, or fixed." It is probably one of the most defining words of our generation, maybe of any generation. Who gets to define Law. Does each individual get to define law for himself? Does each society get to define law? What was once law in the United States is now considered offensive and politically incorrect. Sodomy laws were in many, if not all early states, and some have only been recently repealed. Why do these laws change? Not only do laws change according to different generations, but they change across cultures. Are we evolving when our laws change?
Martin Luther King peacefully demonstrated against racism. At one time in our history there were laws which were clearly racist. MLK was a reformer. Reformers proclaim the injustice of certain laws. But to do so, they must appeal to a higher law. The reformers who campaigned for a repeal of sodomy laws appealed to the "should" and "ought" of some other authority. What was that authority? Why "should" we remove sodomy laws? Why "should" we institute sodomy laws?
Whether you are for or against certain laws, you will always have to appeal to some sort of authority. What is your source of authority? It must either be
Martin Luther King peacefully demonstrated against racism. At one time in our history there were laws which were clearly racist. MLK was a reformer. Reformers proclaim the injustice of certain laws. But to do so, they must appeal to a higher law. The reformers who campaigned for a repeal of sodomy laws appealed to the "should" and "ought" of some other authority. What was that authority? Why "should" we remove sodomy laws? Why "should" we institute sodomy laws?
Whether you are for or against certain laws, you will always have to appeal to some sort of authority. What is your source of authority? It must either be
- Personal - "I feel..." or "I believe..."
- Society (our culture, or contemporary setting says...). This really amounts to: We have more votes, therefore it is right. The fallacy can easily be seen when we ask: "What if homophobes have more votes and make a law to deport all homosexuals to another planet..."
- Philosophers / Scholars - this is the gnosticism of the day... the Platonic elitism which says that some people are more fit to decide the right and wrong of society. But then who decides the standard for becoming one of the elite? Was Hitler one of the elite? Why, or why not?
- Other... there may be other sources, but does it really matter? One thing is for sure, the aforementioned sources are all moving sources. They are not "fixed." By definition they are not sources of law.
All of the previous systems come from a worldview of humanism. Humanism says that man is the standard for determining law. This is the modern mindset. This thinking lays the foundations of relative truth. This is also why common sense has died in America. The only thing absolute is that there are no absolutes (If you can see it, that sentence does not even make sense... it is incoherent). To say that there are no absolutes, I must first say that there are absolutes. Without first admitting that truth is absolute, I cannot make any propositional statements, like... truth is relative. Hence, incoherence.
In direct opposition to the shifting line of humanism is theism. This is truth and law that comes from outside man. Man does not get to define this law, but rather, God defines it. It is absolute, and unchanging throughout history and culture. In other words, God tells man what He expects, instead of man determining what is right or wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly. One source changes... one source doesn't. One source (God) sums up His law in the pages of Scripture, the other source (man)sums his law up in the mountainous pages of bailouts, court decisions, and millions of other laws (from traffic violations to toxic disposal). One source provides liberty, the other tyranny... absolute tyranny...
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Beauty of the Internet Bypassing Liberal Press
Since the media won't cover it, and concern itself with truth, the Internet has provided a better access:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/Daniel_Hannan/blog/2009/03/25/my_speech_to_gordon_brown_goes_viral
Listen to his speech. Read his blog. But ultimately remember that truth is dependant upon the reality of Jesus Christ.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/Daniel_Hannan/blog/2009/03/25/my_speech_to_gordon_brown_goes_viral
Listen to his speech. Read his blog. But ultimately remember that truth is dependant upon the reality of Jesus Christ.
Can We Get This Guy To Come To America?
I'm sure that you have seen Daniel Hannan tear into Prime Minister Brown by now. I am just wishing that we didn't have to travel across the world to find a REAL man. Where is Mr. Smith when you need him? He merely is speaking truth... something that many in the world do not want to hear right now. Men... stand up! Get off the couch, learn what is true, and stand up for the truth.
To be clear, Absolute Truth affects our economics. We find absolute truth in the Bible. What has God said about economics. Mr. Hannan will not mention the Bible, but He will mention truth, and debt. Both of these concepts are mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Both concepts are only measurable and ethical if Jesus Christ is who He says He is. Jesus Christ is the bench mark for all systems of ethics, and metaphysics.
If you haven't seen a man stand up to his peers, and the powers that be, Mr. Hannan is a good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etheargus%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%2F4239877%2ETory%5FMEP%5Fs%5Frant%5Fagainst%5FGordon%5FBrown%5Finternet%5Fsensation%2F&feature=player_embedded
To be clear, Absolute Truth affects our economics. We find absolute truth in the Bible. What has God said about economics. Mr. Hannan will not mention the Bible, but He will mention truth, and debt. Both of these concepts are mentioned numerous times in the Bible. Both concepts are only measurable and ethical if Jesus Christ is who He says He is. Jesus Christ is the bench mark for all systems of ethics, and metaphysics.
If you haven't seen a man stand up to his peers, and the powers that be, Mr. Hannan is a good example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etheargus%2Eco%2Euk%2Fnews%2F4239877%2ETory%5FMEP%5Fs%5Frant%5Fagainst%5FGordon%5FBrown%5Finternet%5Fsensation%2F&feature=player_embedded
I Missed It!
I bought into the Great Americana Culture Syndrome. I graduated high school in 1984. I was the high school starting quarterback... and not a good one! I was so caught up in social drama and vain entertainments, that I didn't even realize (or care) what was going on in the world. My head was in the sand. Amusement ("not think") had captivated my mind, and the depth of worthless things preoccupied my time. Whether my hair looked good was "Oh, so important."
And while I was imbibing in the cultural wine, Reaganomics were taking hold. I had not a clue what Ronald Reagan was about. All that I knew of our president was what I learned in rap songs... pathetic... I know.
Now I am trying to catch up on lost time. It is everywhere. I am thankful for the books, and yes, youtube. The information is not lost... but you sure won't get it handed to you from the liberal media. You will have to dig. The main reason for my blogging is for my kids, and my grand kids. Another reason is to leave a record of resources for myself. If along the way someone alights upon this treasure... well, so much the better. For an excellent analysis of socialism, from President Reagan... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gIxuOabGBE&NR=1
And while I was imbibing in the cultural wine, Reaganomics were taking hold. I had not a clue what Ronald Reagan was about. All that I knew of our president was what I learned in rap songs... pathetic... I know.
Now I am trying to catch up on lost time. It is everywhere. I am thankful for the books, and yes, youtube. The information is not lost... but you sure won't get it handed to you from the liberal media. You will have to dig. The main reason for my blogging is for my kids, and my grand kids. Another reason is to leave a record of resources for myself. If along the way someone alights upon this treasure... well, so much the better. For an excellent analysis of socialism, from President Reagan... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gIxuOabGBE&NR=1
Friday, March 27, 2009
Does the Bible support Socialism, or Capitalism?
I've had people ask me about how I can say that the Bible supports capitalism instead of socialism. Romans 13.1-7 LIMITS government. It does not expand government to be the savior, or the great equalizer. Government should be submitted to the laws of God. That was the whole purpose of the Constitution.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
That is the perspective of the Bible. It takes some digging, but if you want to know more, let's start with a real easy video to get some understanding. This is not a "Christian" video. But, it does lay some good groundwork to be able to discuss a more biblical form of government.Obviously, this topic is so needed for anyone who is wanting to follow Christ. It is one of the biggest topics of the day, and Christians should be able to give a scriptural answer.
I realize that not all people will even care about what the Bible has to say. That person is coming from what is called a "Humanistic" point of reference (truth is up to the individual to define). In other words, every man gets to decide for himself what is good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly.
I will not take the time here to point out the incoherance of relative truth, but only to say that the one who says, "There are no absolutes," cannot make that statement... that statement is an absolute statement. Hence... the self defeating position.
Therefore, pick your position of authority. Is it statistics? Is it your mother and father? Is it the book of Mormon? Is it whatever the government or society says? My authority rests upon Jesus Christ (John 14.6). If you ask me why something is right or wrong, I will say, "The Bible says..." That is my source of authority. It is absolute. It includes all people, everywhere, for all time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y43a6BsNQb4&feature=related
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." --James Madison, Federalist No. 45
That is the perspective of the Bible. It takes some digging, but if you want to know more, let's start with a real easy video to get some understanding. This is not a "Christian" video. But, it does lay some good groundwork to be able to discuss a more biblical form of government.Obviously, this topic is so needed for anyone who is wanting to follow Christ. It is one of the biggest topics of the day, and Christians should be able to give a scriptural answer.
I realize that not all people will even care about what the Bible has to say. That person is coming from what is called a "Humanistic" point of reference (truth is up to the individual to define). In other words, every man gets to decide for himself what is good or bad, right or wrong, beautiful or ugly.
I will not take the time here to point out the incoherance of relative truth, but only to say that the one who says, "There are no absolutes," cannot make that statement... that statement is an absolute statement. Hence... the self defeating position.
Therefore, pick your position of authority. Is it statistics? Is it your mother and father? Is it the book of Mormon? Is it whatever the government or society says? My authority rests upon Jesus Christ (John 14.6). If you ask me why something is right or wrong, I will say, "The Bible says..." That is my source of authority. It is absolute. It includes all people, everywhere, for all time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y43a6BsNQb4&feature=related
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Socialism - the Justification of Theft
"The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery." --former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
"This play within a play is ultimately not about AIG, corporate aircraft, fancy resorts and partying executives, all of which have been denounced by President Obama and members of his administration, along with many fulminating members of the media. While some people rail against 'greed,' some of the less affluent operate according to another of the 'seven deadly sins,' which is envy. I don't care how much money someone else makes. I simply want the opportunity to make the same, or more, should I choose to. ... Who teaches [wrong] values today? If you don't succeed, it's someone else's fault, not yours. Others who have succeeded owe it to you to make things 'fair.' Instead of attending to ways in which our own lives and circumstances might be improved, too many try to bring others down to their level. That never improves conditions for the ones at the bottom, but it makes them feel better, which is the objective of liberal politicians who want to keep people in sufficient misery so they'll continue to win their votes. It apparently doesn't occur to the miserable that they have a ticket out of their circumstances, if they will only climb aboard the right train." --columnist Cal Thomas
"All of Obama's economic policies thus far are designed to drive America into full embrace of socialism. His chief means for this transformation: inflation. He is attempting to inflate the currency through two primary means: intense deficit spending, and pushing up production costs through union subsidization. In order to make these measures politically palatable, he cites FDR as an example of good deficit spending; he cites the credit crunch as an excuse for inflationary monetary policy; and he recommends unionization in order to boost wages. It's a beautiful strategy for purposefully trashing capitalism, all the while blaming capitalism for its own downfall. John Maynard Keynes, the liberal economist who championed government intervention during recessions, recognized Obama's inflationary strategy for what it is: 'Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency,' said Keynes. 'Lenin was certainly right. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.' Obama pursues inflation -- government devaluation of the currency -- with the zeal of the newly converted. His deficit spending will be financed either through higher taxes or through inflation. Obama says he will push higher taxes -- after all, he wants to appease the Chinese, who don't want their U.S. securities paid off with inflated dollars. But covertly, Obama fully intends on inflating the currency to pay of the massive deficit he has shoved through Congress. ... It's the same tried and true policy that created the Great Depression." --columnist Ben Shapiro
"The latest ... successful attempt to spread hatred and violence has been to take that wonderful call to 'justice' and insert one word in front of it that makes it 'better' -- as in, 'social justice'. ... The combination of these words makes one feel so good. But it's time to pull back the curtain and find out what the term has come to mean, how it has been able to gain such massive popularity, and who is behind it. Can you say, 'William Ayers'? Yes, that William Ayers. ... What is Ayers brand of 'social justice' that now permeates our schools and society at large? It is a perversion of what Scripture calls for. If you read his text books and those of his compatriots, you know that he uses the term to call for overthrowing the free-market system -- which affords equal opportunity for everyone -- and replacing it with a system that forces the 'redistribution of wealth' -- and he's not afraid to use violence, hatred and class warfare to do it. He believes that America as a nation is today unjust and oppressive. He freely admits that he is a 'communist street fighter'. His courses, recommended books (such as Queering Elementary Education) and theories are now widely adopted at teacher's colleges around the country. Part of Ayer's success has been to first teach such messages of hatred and racism in inner-city schools. But like everything else from the spread of violent rap music, to the 'gangsta clothing' styles and the attitudes that go with them, to the problems of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy, when you take advantage of disadvantaged kids and feed the problems, those ills eventually spread into the suburban communities as well. ... So, the next time you hear the phrase, 'social justice', take time to question the one who is using it.... Maybe their motives are pure and they are using the word 'justice' in its classic, biblical sense. But chances are they have no idea that the vision of justice that has taken their hearts captive was perpetrated by a terrorist who is using their good will to spread his hatred and to bring forth a more authoritative government where the individual is held captive to a few elitists with ultimate power." --Heritage Foundation Senior Communications Fellow Rebecca Hagelin
CULTURE
"Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. ... Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends. ...[That] is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government. ...[But] now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral." --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
INSIGHT
"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism." --French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
LIBERTY
"We do not want to lose the liberty and freedom that we were born with in this country and that has made this the greatest country on earth.... It has been liberty; it's been freedom; it has been the ambition and desire to use that freedom in the concept of self-interest. ... [T]his notion of sacrifice that the president talked about ... is just over the top. Liberals always talk about sacrifice -- Obama, every time he opens his mouth, mentions the need for people to sacrifice. ... We all have to jointly suffer in order for all of us to somehow be the same. ...[But] self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest is what built this country. Somebody starting a business did it in his self-interest. He didn't start a business so that there would be jobs and health care in the community. He started a business because he loved the business that he was in. ... He had a product or a service that he thought would improve the lives of people. ... Let me give you a [quote] from Ayn Rand on this. 'It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.' That is President Obama." --radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh
THE GIPPER
"The difference between the path toward greater freedom or bigger government is the difference between success and failure; between opportunity and coercion; between faith in a glorious future and fear of mediocrity and despair; between respecting people as adults, each with a spark of greatness, and treating them as helpless children to be forever dependent; between a drab, materialistic world where Big Brother rules by promises to special interest groups, and a world of adventure where everyday people set their sights on impossible dreams, distant stars, and the Kingdom of God. We have the true message of hope for America." --Ronald Reagan
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." --President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)
"I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.' That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him." --accountant and Commissioner of Internal Revenue T. Coleman Andrews (1899-1983)
The previous quotes were drawn from: http://patriotpost.us/
"This play within a play is ultimately not about AIG, corporate aircraft, fancy resorts and partying executives, all of which have been denounced by President Obama and members of his administration, along with many fulminating members of the media. While some people rail against 'greed,' some of the less affluent operate according to another of the 'seven deadly sins,' which is envy. I don't care how much money someone else makes. I simply want the opportunity to make the same, or more, should I choose to. ... Who teaches [wrong] values today? If you don't succeed, it's someone else's fault, not yours. Others who have succeeded owe it to you to make things 'fair.' Instead of attending to ways in which our own lives and circumstances might be improved, too many try to bring others down to their level. That never improves conditions for the ones at the bottom, but it makes them feel better, which is the objective of liberal politicians who want to keep people in sufficient misery so they'll continue to win their votes. It apparently doesn't occur to the miserable that they have a ticket out of their circumstances, if they will only climb aboard the right train." --columnist Cal Thomas
"All of Obama's economic policies thus far are designed to drive America into full embrace of socialism. His chief means for this transformation: inflation. He is attempting to inflate the currency through two primary means: intense deficit spending, and pushing up production costs through union subsidization. In order to make these measures politically palatable, he cites FDR as an example of good deficit spending; he cites the credit crunch as an excuse for inflationary monetary policy; and he recommends unionization in order to boost wages. It's a beautiful strategy for purposefully trashing capitalism, all the while blaming capitalism for its own downfall. John Maynard Keynes, the liberal economist who championed government intervention during recessions, recognized Obama's inflationary strategy for what it is: 'Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency,' said Keynes. 'Lenin was certainly right. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.' Obama pursues inflation -- government devaluation of the currency -- with the zeal of the newly converted. His deficit spending will be financed either through higher taxes or through inflation. Obama says he will push higher taxes -- after all, he wants to appease the Chinese, who don't want their U.S. securities paid off with inflated dollars. But covertly, Obama fully intends on inflating the currency to pay of the massive deficit he has shoved through Congress. ... It's the same tried and true policy that created the Great Depression." --columnist Ben Shapiro
"The latest ... successful attempt to spread hatred and violence has been to take that wonderful call to 'justice' and insert one word in front of it that makes it 'better' -- as in, 'social justice'. ... The combination of these words makes one feel so good. But it's time to pull back the curtain and find out what the term has come to mean, how it has been able to gain such massive popularity, and who is behind it. Can you say, 'William Ayers'? Yes, that William Ayers. ... What is Ayers brand of 'social justice' that now permeates our schools and society at large? It is a perversion of what Scripture calls for. If you read his text books and those of his compatriots, you know that he uses the term to call for overthrowing the free-market system -- which affords equal opportunity for everyone -- and replacing it with a system that forces the 'redistribution of wealth' -- and he's not afraid to use violence, hatred and class warfare to do it. He believes that America as a nation is today unjust and oppressive. He freely admits that he is a 'communist street fighter'. His courses, recommended books (such as Queering Elementary Education) and theories are now widely adopted at teacher's colleges around the country. Part of Ayer's success has been to first teach such messages of hatred and racism in inner-city schools. But like everything else from the spread of violent rap music, to the 'gangsta clothing' styles and the attitudes that go with them, to the problems of out of wedlock sex and pregnancy, when you take advantage of disadvantaged kids and feed the problems, those ills eventually spread into the suburban communities as well. ... So, the next time you hear the phrase, 'social justice', take time to question the one who is using it.... Maybe their motives are pure and they are using the word 'justice' in its classic, biblical sense. But chances are they have no idea that the vision of justice that has taken their hearts captive was perpetrated by a terrorist who is using their good will to spread his hatred and to bring forth a more authoritative government where the individual is held captive to a few elitists with ultimate power." --Heritage Foundation Senior Communications Fellow Rebecca Hagelin
CULTURE
"Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values. Whether we have the stomach to own up to it or not, we have become an immoral people left with little more than the pretense of morality. ... Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him? Neither question is complex and can be answered by either a yes or no. For me the answer is no to both questions but I bet that your average college professor, politician or minister would not give a simple yes or no response. They would be evasive and probably say that it all depends. ...[That] is because they are sly enough to know that either answer would be troublesome for their agenda. A yes answer would put them firmly in the position of supporting some of mankind's most horrible injustices such as slavery. After all, what is slavery but the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another? A no answer would put them on the spot as well because that would mean they would have to come out against taking the earnings of one American to give to another in the forms of farm and business handouts, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and thousands of similar programs that account for more than two-thirds of the federal budget. There is neither moral justification nor constitutional authority for what amounts to legalized theft. This is not an argument against paying taxes. We all have a moral obligation to pay our share of the constitutionally mandated and enumerated functions of the federal government. ...[But] now that the U.S. Congress has established the principle that one American has a right to live at the expense of another American, it no longer pays to be moral." --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
INSIGHT
"Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism." --French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
LIBERTY
"We do not want to lose the liberty and freedom that we were born with in this country and that has made this the greatest country on earth.... It has been liberty; it's been freedom; it has been the ambition and desire to use that freedom in the concept of self-interest. ... [T]his notion of sacrifice that the president talked about ... is just over the top. Liberals always talk about sacrifice -- Obama, every time he opens his mouth, mentions the need for people to sacrifice. ... We all have to jointly suffer in order for all of us to somehow be the same. ...[But] self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest is what built this country. Somebody starting a business did it in his self-interest. He didn't start a business so that there would be jobs and health care in the community. He started a business because he loved the business that he was in. ... He had a product or a service that he thought would improve the lives of people. ... Let me give you a [quote] from Ayn Rand on this. 'It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.' That is President Obama." --radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh
THE GIPPER
"The difference between the path toward greater freedom or bigger government is the difference between success and failure; between opportunity and coercion; between faith in a glorious future and fear of mediocrity and despair; between respecting people as adults, each with a spark of greatness, and treating them as helpless children to be forever dependent; between a drab, materialistic world where Big Brother rules by promises to special interest groups, and a world of adventure where everyday people set their sights on impossible dreams, distant stars, and the Kingdom of God. We have the true message of hope for America." --Ronald Reagan
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." --President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908)
"I don't like the income tax. Every time we talk about these taxes we get around to the idea of 'from each according to his capacity and to each according to his needs.' That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him." --accountant and Commissioner of Internal Revenue T. Coleman Andrews (1899-1983)
The previous quotes were drawn from: http://patriotpost.us/
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Distinctive Christian Culture (DCC)
Distinctive Christian Culture is a "Robism." I am making a new category. VanTil said, "Culture is religion externalized." I say, "Face Book is culture." Therefore, Face Book is religion externalized. Face Book is a platform for people to show the world what they cherish most. People don't put pix of their trash on face book and celebrate it. So, what are the sights, sounds, and smells (culture) of your face book?
Absolute Truth means that there is one standard. Relative Truth is what today's culture soaks in. The controlling ideologies of the day would have you to believe that truth can change from person to person. This is a lie.
While perspectives may change, truth does not. There is a truth... one truth. Preference may vary from person to person, but truth does not. This goes against political correctness, and multi-culturalism (there is that word again... "culture").
If there are 40 chairs in a room, and 3 people say that there are 38, 42, and 50 chairs in a room, then none of them are right. Truth is like that. It does not get upset when people are wrong, and it doesn't change based upon someones ideological bent. All people can be wrong, but not all people can be right. If capitalism is right, then by definition, socialism is wrong. There may be a little of both, but certainly there will be a majority of one economic system, or it would cease to be called one or the other.
Our prevailing culture hates distinctions. The contemporary thinking says, "Everyone gets to choose for himself what is right, beautiful, and good." This means, "Everyone can have his own truth." But is that true? This is different than preference... I prefer steak, you prefer fish. But a steak is distinctively different from a fish no matter what you prefer. Relative truth says, "Each person can decide what he considers fish, and steak. If he says this shoe is a steak, then he has the right to decide that for himself."
Consider the hypocrisy... When you go to pick up your paycheck, your boss better be agreeing with you that 40 hours means 40 hours, and $20 / hour means $20 / hour. You would have a fit! While you may espouse a relative truth worldview, you do not live like that... shame, shame... you hypocrite.
Absolute Truth draws distinctions. Absolute Truth says, "There is a right & wrong, good & bad, beautiful & ugly." It is not up to everyone to decide for himself. God draws the distinctions. The Bible sets the distinctions forth. We may prefer steak, and God may bless us with steak. But if you call a steak "fish," then you are lying. Bill Clinton does not need to define the word "is." He just did not want to tell the truth. He is the poster child for prevailing culture. Today, men like to dress like women, and women want to dress like men. The culture says, "They have the right to choose." God already chose. Some things are easy to see, and others will take more work at trying to figure out what the Bible says. None-the-less, God set forth the standard.
Distinctive Christian Culture embraces God's distinctives. It purposefully sets up culture with obvious distinctions to emphasize what God considers good, beautiful, and right. A submissive woman is beautiful, and a proud woman is ugly. A truthful politician is good, and a lying politician is bad. Abuse in the family stinks, and a loving family smells delicious. What is the culture of your home? What are the sights, sounds, and smells of your Face Book? Does it smell like family unity, or a brothel? Does it look like the beauty of distinctives, or the blurring lines of a dying culture? Do you say you are a Christian, but celebrate the same things the world celebrates... where are your distinctives?
Absolute Truth means that there is one standard. Relative Truth is what today's culture soaks in. The controlling ideologies of the day would have you to believe that truth can change from person to person. This is a lie.
While perspectives may change, truth does not. There is a truth... one truth. Preference may vary from person to person, but truth does not. This goes against political correctness, and multi-culturalism (there is that word again... "culture").
If there are 40 chairs in a room, and 3 people say that there are 38, 42, and 50 chairs in a room, then none of them are right. Truth is like that. It does not get upset when people are wrong, and it doesn't change based upon someones ideological bent. All people can be wrong, but not all people can be right. If capitalism is right, then by definition, socialism is wrong. There may be a little of both, but certainly there will be a majority of one economic system, or it would cease to be called one or the other.
Our prevailing culture hates distinctions. The contemporary thinking says, "Everyone gets to choose for himself what is right, beautiful, and good." This means, "Everyone can have his own truth." But is that true? This is different than preference... I prefer steak, you prefer fish. But a steak is distinctively different from a fish no matter what you prefer. Relative truth says, "Each person can decide what he considers fish, and steak. If he says this shoe is a steak, then he has the right to decide that for himself."
Consider the hypocrisy... When you go to pick up your paycheck, your boss better be agreeing with you that 40 hours means 40 hours, and $20 / hour means $20 / hour. You would have a fit! While you may espouse a relative truth worldview, you do not live like that... shame, shame... you hypocrite.
Absolute Truth draws distinctions. Absolute Truth says, "There is a right & wrong, good & bad, beautiful & ugly." It is not up to everyone to decide for himself. God draws the distinctions. The Bible sets the distinctions forth. We may prefer steak, and God may bless us with steak. But if you call a steak "fish," then you are lying. Bill Clinton does not need to define the word "is." He just did not want to tell the truth. He is the poster child for prevailing culture. Today, men like to dress like women, and women want to dress like men. The culture says, "They have the right to choose." God already chose. Some things are easy to see, and others will take more work at trying to figure out what the Bible says. None-the-less, God set forth the standard.
Distinctive Christian Culture embraces God's distinctives. It purposefully sets up culture with obvious distinctions to emphasize what God considers good, beautiful, and right. A submissive woman is beautiful, and a proud woman is ugly. A truthful politician is good, and a lying politician is bad. Abuse in the family stinks, and a loving family smells delicious. What is the culture of your home? What are the sights, sounds, and smells of your Face Book? Does it smell like family unity, or a brothel? Does it look like the beauty of distinctives, or the blurring lines of a dying culture? Do you say you are a Christian, but celebrate the same things the world celebrates... where are your distinctives?
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Foundations - Part One (Luke 16.13-15)
The foundation for the Temple of Diana was built upon a marsh in Ephesus (present day Turkey). Today, only one pillar remains standing from the 127 original pillars.In contrast to the short-lived foundations of that pagan temple, Jesus said that anyone who "hears these words of Mine [Jesus], and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock." (Matthew 7.24)
There is one principle that Jesus lays out in this passage which most people continually fall over and wreck their lives with. This principle is as sure as the law of gravity, and just as devastating. This principle can account for all divorce, depression, and every kind of sorrow. Even when a person experiences the best that this life has to offer, if he violates this principle, it will catch up to him in the end.
The principle is this: No servant can serve two masters. (Luke 16.13).
It is this principle which logically corresponds to the first commandment, You shall have no gods before me. (Exodus 20.3). No man has the right to put anything before God.
We violate this principle in an untold number of ways. And when we violate it, we might not even realize we are doing it. Hence, the cycle of ruin continues.
Christians, and Atheists alike violate this principle. Both, the Atheist and the Christian who does not practice the commands of Christ, is coming from the exact same worldview... acting as if God did not exist. For the Christian, consider the cycles of sin which debilitated the Israelites and kept them from enjoying complete occupation of the Promised Land in the book of Judges. For the Atheist, I must ask you to keep reading until I can make my proof that Atheists and Christians who do not follow the commands of Christ, are coming from the exact same worldview.
Lastly, whatever provides your source of authority is the object of your worship. If you, an Atheist, say that science is your source of authority, then by definition you will view life from a particular perspective which will resemble (losely):
- Nominalism in the metaphysical
- Atheism in the theological
- Materialism in the cosmological
- Biologism (and evolution) in the anthropological
- Empiricism in the epistemological
- Utilitarianism in the ethical
- Positivism in the legal
If you follow your worldview consistently, then the outcomes will resemble these perspectives. The Christian who does not act upon God's Word, is coming from your same worldview... and there are many!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Teaching and the Socratic Method
Critical thinking seems to have become a lost art. Americana hooks the mind up to "Napolean Dynamite" and says relax your mind... enjoy. In direct contrast, the Bible says, "Take every thought captive..."
For an excellent article concerning the Socratic Method: http://www.greatbooksacademy.org/html/what_is_the_socratic_method_.html
For an excellent article concerning the Socratic Method: http://www.greatbooksacademy.org/html/what_is_the_socratic_method_.html
To See What Is Coming Our Way...
This is the view from a multigenerational Muslim
see http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/wm/Lehrman-092706a.wvx
see http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/wm/Lehrman-092706a.wvx
The Global Warming Myth
For the truth about global warming: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=440562
The Epitome of Pelosi's Government
To see our men and women of honor... our fearless leaders be reduced to the pathetic place that liberalism, and humanism takes a government, please see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LOtKIIKcg
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Greed: Capitalism, or Socialism?
One night a distraught woman stole another woman's baby. The first woman's baby had died, so, she stole the other woman's baby. The Bible speaks of Solomon, the wisest man ever (apart from Christ), as being confronted with this issue the next day. What will this wise government official do?
Solomon is looking at two distraught women. One lady has undergone the unfortunate and tragic circumstances of losing her baby. Another lady has the unfortunate and tragic circumstances of having her baby stolen.
Now they both appear before Solomon the King. Each mother claims the baby belongs to her. Solomon calls for a sword to be brought to him. He proceeds to chop the baby in half, but before he can kill the baby and divide the parts, the real mom screams, "NO... don't kill him!" Willingly, she'd rather endure the pain of theft, than kill the baby. (1 Kings 3.16-28). Note, the other mother could care less about the death of the baby. In fact the Bible says that she said, "He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him!"
Socialism thrives on class envy. Those who have not are angry because other people have more. It simply does not make sense to "steal the other person's child." Stealing from them will not bring back what I have lost, or never had. Worse yet, it often sounds compassionate, but in truth is greedy. It wants equality across the board. "He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him!"
You could take all the rich people in the world, steal their money, and give it out to the poor. In Two years, the rich people will be rich again, and the poor will be poor again. I am poor because I do not have the business savvy that others have. I do not want the government to steal from them just because we do not have an equal pay grade. I am not helpless.
But what does belong to people, ought to be protected. If God gives you children, they shouldn't be stolen from you. If God gives you money, it shouldn't be stolen from you. If God has not blessed you with either, that is HIS right to do... He is God. It is not right for us to steal even if it is by majority opinion.
THE POINT:
God does not command EQUALITY. God commands JUSTICE.
Solomon is looking at two distraught women. One lady has undergone the unfortunate and tragic circumstances of losing her baby. Another lady has the unfortunate and tragic circumstances of having her baby stolen.
Now they both appear before Solomon the King. Each mother claims the baby belongs to her. Solomon calls for a sword to be brought to him. He proceeds to chop the baby in half, but before he can kill the baby and divide the parts, the real mom screams, "NO... don't kill him!" Willingly, she'd rather endure the pain of theft, than kill the baby. (1 Kings 3.16-28). Note, the other mother could care less about the death of the baby. In fact the Bible says that she said, "He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him!"
Socialism thrives on class envy. Those who have not are angry because other people have more. It simply does not make sense to "steal the other person's child." Stealing from them will not bring back what I have lost, or never had. Worse yet, it often sounds compassionate, but in truth is greedy. It wants equality across the board. "He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him!"
You could take all the rich people in the world, steal their money, and give it out to the poor. In Two years, the rich people will be rich again, and the poor will be poor again. I am poor because I do not have the business savvy that others have. I do not want the government to steal from them just because we do not have an equal pay grade. I am not helpless.
But what does belong to people, ought to be protected. If God gives you children, they shouldn't be stolen from you. If God gives you money, it shouldn't be stolen from you. If God has not blessed you with either, that is HIS right to do... He is God. It is not right for us to steal even if it is by majority opinion.
THE POINT:
God does not command EQUALITY. God commands JUSTICE.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Obamanomics... pure socialism
Socialism is UNbiblical. God gave man a stomach to propel him to work (Proverb 16.26). God said that an irresponsible man who will not work should not eat (2 Thessalonians 3.10). Consider the following Wall Street Journal article... oh, yes, I know Wall Street has it's crooks... but that is another argument. It is a "tou quoque" (you also) fallacy to excuse government theft because of Wall Street theft.
Most of his 'stimulus' spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health." --The Wall Street Journal
Most of his 'stimulus' spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.
The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health." --The Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
The Left's Love for Rush
It seems Rush reports on things which most other media groups will not. If his views were not striking a chord with so many Americans, would he be so popular? Why is he getting so much hate mail from the left? Could it be that his right wing ideologies are in direct opposition to left wing ideologies?
If this is true, then why doesn't the left just answer his arguments with better arguments... something like socialism is better than capitalism because... all people should get equal pay (or, whatever your argument is).
These arguments are so full of heat, but no light. Forget Rush, lets talk about why you think Socialism is better than capitalism; why big government is better than small government; why communal property is better than private property?
If this is true, then why doesn't the left just answer his arguments with better arguments... something like socialism is better than capitalism because... all people should get equal pay (or, whatever your argument is).
These arguments are so full of heat, but no light. Forget Rush, lets talk about why you think Socialism is better than capitalism; why big government is better than small government; why communal property is better than private property?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Logic and Truth
It is oxymoronic to say that you are rational and believe in relative truth simultaneously.
Logic 101
A logical argument is built upon truth statements. Without truth statements, you cannot build an argument. A logical argument contains a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. If terms cannot be defined universally, then you do not have a rational argument.
Example:
All cows eat grass
You are a cow
Therefore, you eat grass
For us to have a rational debate, I must do 3 things:
1. Define my terms: (cows, grass, you)
2. Place my terms in a true / false statement
3. Put my statements (propositions) in a valid logic format
Therefore,
A. If we can agree upon what a "cow" is
B. If we can agree upon what "grass" is
C. If we can agree upon what "you" refers to
Then we can actually discuss something rationally. If truth is relative, then there cannot be rational thought. In other words, if a cow cannot be difined in such a way that we both know what we are talking about, then communication ceases.
"All truth is relative" is simply "an attack on thought." Besides, I garauntee that no believer in relative truth lives according to his belief.
Consider: A man who espouses relative truth goes into pick up his paycheck. He is supposed to be receiving $500.00 for last week's work. His boss pays him $1.00. His boss says, "That may be $1.00 to you, but to me that is $500.00." You can bet that at that point the man espousing relative truth is becoming an absolutist!
And if you think this is just ivory tower stuff, consider the stupidity of our nation's highest office holder, Bill Clinton, saying, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
Logic 101
A logical argument is built upon truth statements. Without truth statements, you cannot build an argument. A logical argument contains a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. If terms cannot be defined universally, then you do not have a rational argument.
Example:
All cows eat grass
You are a cow
Therefore, you eat grass
For us to have a rational debate, I must do 3 things:
1. Define my terms: (cows, grass, you)
2. Place my terms in a true / false statement
3. Put my statements (propositions) in a valid logic format
Therefore,
A. If we can agree upon what a "cow" is
B. If we can agree upon what "grass" is
C. If we can agree upon what "you" refers to
Then we can actually discuss something rationally. If truth is relative, then there cannot be rational thought. In other words, if a cow cannot be difined in such a way that we both know what we are talking about, then communication ceases.
"All truth is relative" is simply "an attack on thought." Besides, I garauntee that no believer in relative truth lives according to his belief.
Consider: A man who espouses relative truth goes into pick up his paycheck. He is supposed to be receiving $500.00 for last week's work. His boss pays him $1.00. His boss says, "That may be $1.00 to you, but to me that is $500.00." You can bet that at that point the man espousing relative truth is becoming an absolutist!
And if you think this is just ivory tower stuff, consider the stupidity of our nation's highest office holder, Bill Clinton, saying, "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
