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.

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...

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

1. Personal - "I feel..." or "I believe..."
2. 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..."
3. 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?
4. 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...

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.

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

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

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

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/

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?

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

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?