Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Sympathy for the Devil

I bought "Rules for Radicals", by Saul Alinsky today.

I was interested in all of the buzz this man has been getting amongst conservative circles and am interested in how the left has been so successful in transforming, and today, dictating the terms of the political debate. We have been transformed from a nation of self-reliant people from the 1890's to one of a social-democracy, where large portions of our population actually believe that other people should pay for their homes, their healthcare, their education, their comfort and, in the process, compliment them and help build up their self-esteem, and let them perform whatever behavior they wish to, regardless of what debauchery it represents or effect it may have on the culture or people around them.

The progressive movement began in this country, I believe because it filled a gap in the recovery after the Civil War. I don't think people appreciate how horrible that war was for this country and it is hard to imagine such a war today. More Americans died in that war than in EVERY other war or conflict this country has been in since...COMBINED. And it happened at a time when this nation was much smaller.

I think the healing process left a hole of hopelessness and I believe that there was suddenly a large number of people that had a very hard time taking care of themselves. The reconstruction was a huge blow to the country's character of self-reliance.

During reconstruction, the Federal government tried to step in and help, and it was the first real taste of the Feds being empowered in that way, or at least the first taste that left a wanting for more.

The Progressive movement started in 1900, or there abouts and started truly trying to change the perception of the social contract and pushing against the founding principles of self-reliance. They imagined that they could have liberty and have the government "help" at the same time.

What they called "progressive" in this country was called "communist" in Europe and elsewhere. When Red October occurred there was an exciting buzz of the progressives here in this country and there is a well-documented enthusiasm on the part of many central figures of our government that were enamoured by the Soviets.

Amity Shlaes, does a great job discussing the development and growth, really the golden era, of the progressive movement in the mid to late 1920's through the Great Depression and its end at the entrance of the US into WWII, in her book, "The Forgotten Man".

The wide-reaching, cost-controls and heavy handed, central-planning style policies of the FDR administration were abandoned for the most part during the war, and after the war, the progressives had to hide their intellectual affiliation and private affection for the Soviet experiment due to the aftermath of the war and the stand-off with Stalin.

Then, Joe McCarthy, the golden decade of the 1950's, and general prosperity erased the lure of the nanny state and made being a commie, a bit of a risky venture.

In comes the 1960's and the baby-boomers have now become teens and are, by far the most affluent, and spoiled generation in the history of the U.S. up to that point. This generation is tasked with dealing with a surging world-wide communist movement, while having the kind of self-doubt and circumspection that only the affluent can afford to have. To push this over the edge, the nasty, and very real remnant of the Civil War still remained; segragation and suffrage rights for blacks.

The baby boomers lost faith in their country, their parents, and everything else. They were susceptable to a new idea, that was not a very new idea and not a very good idea; socialism, statism, communism. The progressive movement had new life.

The entire concept of communism is "social justice". Karl Marx was angry that people with money employed the poor and treated them harshly, so he thought the poor should just rise up, and kill the rich and take their stuff. Then, divide it up equally, and everyone could be happy. The entire culture would be like a giant pirate ship. Thieves' honor and all. There is no fundamental difference between this philosophy and the modern progressives in American politics, the Democratic Party. They are the modern Robin Hoods, taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

There are three major problems with this philosophy;

1. It is immoral to take something that doesn't belong to you. This should be obvious and can be countered with the claim that unrighteous acquisition of wealth is also immoral and should be resisted. This works with Robin Hood, which I would agree with and discuss with point number three. But it breaks down when the situation arises where a person comes by their wealth on their own accord, having taken advantage of no one. Then, the moral high ground goes back to the side of the "rich". I would argue that in modern society this latter condition is the norm and not the exception.

2. In order to believe in it, you have to believe that once you succeed in dividing all of the wealth equally, that it will stay that way and that everyone will be happy and satisfied with that. To believe in Marxism and all other forms of collectivism, you must believe that man, in his natural state, is good, kind, decent, loving, generous, and unselfish. Anyone that is honest with themselves know this to be patently false. Any Christian or Jew that has read their Bible knows this to be false and that Man is a fallen creature; sinful, greedy, selfish, prideful, wicked, nasty and all kinds of other things, if left to their own devices and without other influences. Secondly, you must also assume that everyone in the world is equally good at everything. Anyone that has ever played sports or even watched sports knows this cannot be true. likewise in academics and every other vocation or skill or ability. People are different. that means that some people will be better at certain things than other people. This is so obvious that I won't belabor the point any further. The summation of this? If you divide up all the wealth in the world equally amongst all of the people, it would very quickly find its way back into the hands of the people that started with it.

3. It's underlying premise and context don't apply to the United States of America. The underlying premise requires that people with wealth came by it by chance, or took it from someone else and the people that don't have wealth have been somehow robbed. Now this notion works, to a certain extent in a land where feudal governments are in effect. Where a landed nobility has all of the wealth and there is nothing a peasant can do to break out of the social caste that they were born into. That is the scenario where communism has some leghold and argument. The problem is that a feudal condition has NEVER existed in the U.S. The people that have money, almost ALL of them, made that money themselves by hardwork. Look up the statistics. Look at the list of the richest men in America. I'll name two; Bill Gates, Warren Buffet. Both from humble beginnings, not landed gentry. Their hard work, ingenuity and luck afforded them their massive wealth. Those guys got a little lucky and were in the right place and the right time, but there are countless executives and business owners across this country that are less wealthy but not so obviously so, that made their companies from nothing. They do not belong in a class of landed gentry.

You see, there is no foundation for an argument for communism in this country, which is why they have to go around to the back door, rename it a thousand times for better marketing appeal and try and trick people into voting for it.

During the sixties a radical movement was born of the progressives and they became toxic and cancerous. I believe they are currently holding the reigns of power in Washington D.C. and will destroy my country in the process of creating their utopia.

One of the names that has popped up frequently as of late, and given credit for the tactics and strategy accredited for their current sustained success since the 1960's is Saul Alinsky. "Rules for Radicals" was written in 1971.

The blurbs on the back of my copy:

"This country's leading hell-raiser...has set down some of the rules of
the game. No one has had more experience or has been more successful at it
than Alinsky." - The Nation


"Alinsky's techniques and teachings influenced generations of community
and labor organizers, including the church-based group hiring a young [Barak]
Obama to work on Chicago's South Side in the 1980's...Alinsky impressed a young
[Hillary] Clinton, who was growing up in Park Ridge at the time Alinsky was the
director of the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago." - Chicago
Sun-Times


Having read that, I think it is relevant and important to take these people at their word and read what those strategies are. As I begin, I notice another blurb in the beginning of the book by Alinsky himself;

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the
very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to
know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which), the
first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so
effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer" - Saul
Alinsky


I had to look twice at that one. I haven't read a single word past that point. The man is seriously giving a shout-out to Satan in the opening pages to his book. Now before you secularists run me off to the funny farm for being a radical religious kook, let's just keep it in the secular world for a moment;

I think it is fair to say from the blurb that Alinsky has no faith in God, and certainly no fear of Him. But let us just take his statement in the spirit of the "myth" that he means it. The "myth goes something like this: Lucifer rebelled by lying, causing the world countless turmoil, mortality, death, destruction, disease, all because of his pride and defiance. He gained for himself a kingdom, for a short time, and will suffer a guarranteed defeat in the uncertain future, where his punishment will be to perish in the lake of fire. While he gratifies himself and his desires, the world burns, countless souls are condemned and there are mountains of corpses and oceans of blood in his wake.

I think that is a pretty good analogy for what socialism has done to our world. What a curious "myth" to pay homage to, even if you don't believe in God. What an ominous and dangerous warning sign to those of us who do. I don't think Mr. Alinsky quite meant it in this way, or perhaps he did. Hmm.

Saul Alinsky, this song was written for you;

"Please allow me to introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when Jesus
Christ

Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around St. Petersberg

When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank Held a general's
rank

When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you

Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
What's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee

While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made
I shouted out"Who killed the
Kennedys?"

When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself

I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadors
Who get killed before they reached Bombay
Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet
you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a
criminal

And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer'
Cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me

Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet
you

Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um baby, get down
Woo, who

Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, what's my name

Tell me honey, baby guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
Ooo, who

Ooo, who
Ooo, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah
What's my nameTell me, baby, what's my name

Tell me, sweetie, what's my name
Ooo, who, who

Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Ooo, who, who
Oh, yeah" - Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil, 1968

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Barney, the eco-socialist?

No. I am not talking about Barney Frank (D), of Massachusetts.

My 20 month old beautiful baby girl LOVES Barney. You know the purple dinosaur with the TV show?

So, anyway, I had just finished posting about Green being the new Red in our society and was obligated for the interests of domestic peace and tranquility in the home to sit and watch Barney - the effeminate, creepy dinosaur - with my little girl on my lap. The way I see it, it is her first lesson on how to force men to watch things they'd truly rather not, in order to please her. Being my progeny, I guess I rationalized the activity that I was helping her learn how to tame future man-cubs, eager for her favors.

Anyway, I am watching this the other day and it was an episode about Earth Day and environmentalism. It reminded me so much of Sunday school that our kids attend, except for some very striking and important features; In Sunday school they learn about an awesome and mighty God that created the universe and sent His only begotten Son to save us from our sins. This mighty God loves them. They also learn that they are special and knit in their mother's womb at the beginning of time by God, for a purpose on this earth of ours.

In the environmentalist movement, they are taught that they are destroying the very world in which they live and so are their ignorant parents, simply by living, breathing, eating, working, and existing.

Most times, Barney is fairly harmless. The show teaches kids about sharing, appreciating everyone for their unique qualities, etc. But they teach this stuff all without the greater context and everything revolves around Barney. Barney loves them. Barney wants them to be better. Barney says...(fill in the blank). This is ok on the surface, but when coupled with a political movement, it is creepy - all the more so with the climate change email scandal and the now, near certainty, that a large portion (if not all), of the environmentalist movement is just a facade for the world socialist and communist movements, now in hiding since 1989.

I say this without link or example or proof, due to laziness at the moment, but my rationale is this: If the environmentalists have been promoting something that they know is a lie for all of these years, there must be another motivation behind their movement. Also, ALL of their solutions and tactics are indistinguishable from the socialists and communists of yesterday. Although, without a stellar proof of my claim, I am feeling rather bullish about it, in face of the circumstantial evidence. If I am somehow proven wrong, I will be very quick with the mea culpa's and the acknowledgement of such sin. But I don't think I am wrong. And neither do you most likely.

Barney needs to be about entertaining kids and basic moral lessons; you know, like don't hit people, share your stuff with others, being kind, considerate, polite, being a friend, how your actions affect other people. Barney, and all kids programs need to stay very far away from the environmentalist movement, and many other political hot button issues.

Now if we could just work on our public schools...

Friday, December 11, 2009

Green is the new Red

Charles Krauthammer's new article articulates what I have been saying privately for years; green is the new red. Although CK says that socialism is dead and environmentalism has taken its place, I say that socialism has just got a disguise. There is no difference between the two other than the justification. I thought I would never have anything nice to say about socialism, but here it is: At least the rationalization for socialism is improving people's lives and taking care of the less fortunate. This environmental thing is based upon saving a planet...a planet that would still be here if we all dropped dead tomorrow. A planet so vast as to defy all comprehension that anyone could be so foolish as to think that we could destroy it, let a lone "save" it.

Our ecosystem is so complicated and dynamic that I am astounded at the faith people have in these eggheads in the environmental movement. But then, when I remind myself that green is the new red, everything makes sense again. These people are just responding to the urge for centralized power in the hands of some intellectual elites, instead of having power in the hands of a free people. The urge for tyranny is strong in the human heart. We will all worship something or someone. Be careful of what you choose.

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Evil Oil Companies and Corrupt Politics

If one needs to feed one's conspiracy theory-addled brain, read this article from Powerline.

Apparently, Brazil, is going gangbusters to develop an oil field in the oceans off of its coast. I have no problem with that. However, it came out in the news a while back that either the stimulus, or the new budget or one of the $trillion wonders that have come out of Congress and this White House, included a subsidy for Brazil to drill for oil off of its shores.

That's right, U.S. taxpayers are helping fund Brazil's drilling for oil off of the coast of Brazil. Meanwhile, these same politicians make it impossible for the U.S. to drill for oil on our own coasts, within our own borders, or develop the abundance of natural gas we have under our soil.

All of this is bad enough, but when you find out that George Soros is a major investor in the company that stands to profit from Brazil's oil prosperity and he is the main agitator in Democrat politics, then things just turn ugly.

I won't go into a long tirade on this one just yet. I want to verify the Brazil oil drilling subsidy first. Tick tick tick tick tick.....

UPDATE: Here it is. From August 25th in the WSJ. Petrobas, is being subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. No. Let me rephrase that. George Soros, is being subsidized by the U.S. Taxpayer.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin and Gateway Pundit were on to this back in August and connected all of the dots already. I can't go a day without blowing my lid on this administration and this congress.

UPDATE: I guess the only "news" here is that the Washington Post finally reported on this on Monday. Of course they "forgot" to mention that we are subsidizing this effort to the tune of $2 billion or more in taxpayer money...oh, yeah, and they are four months late on the story. You know, conveniently out of the hustle and bustle when everyone was agitated at congress for spending too much money. We certainly wouldn't want to incite anger at our government for being corrupt during the reign of Democrats. WaPo is disgusting.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Educating Gabby

"The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson

Another quote from Thomas Jefferson to help understand why I am so insensed that Gabrielle Giffords used his words to help justify her support for the giant health care bill that passed the House with the help of her vote.

Should we go further? How about John Locke, Thomas Jefferson's intellectual father in many ways.

"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common (as the gift
from God) to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person".
This, nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and
the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then,
he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath
mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and
thereby makes it his property...
He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an
oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly
appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is
his. I ask, then, when did they begin to be his? When he
digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he
brought them home? or when he picked them up? And it is plain, if
the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could"
John Locke,
The Second Essay Concerning Civil Government

If this is true, then at what point is a physician's labor his own? At what point does a physician get to determine when and where he spends his time and labors? How can one possibly argue that a government, an insurance company, or anyone else has a right to tell a physician how and when and for what compensation to practice his art, for the furtherance of his own sustenance and profit?

We hear of people talking about the notion that our citizens have a "right" to health care. This is impossible. Because in order to have that right, you also must have the right to tell another person what their wages are, what their hours are, who they can and must do business with, and who they can hire.

Physicians become the slaves of those who have a "right" to their labor.

But it gets worse. You see, I cannot possibly come up with a scheme for all of this, so it falls on the clumsy, brutal, and destructive hands of some sort of government to administer all of this. Physicians now become wards and servants the "the people". Except "the people", to the socialist is really the large and tyrannical centralized government.

Let's move on to Adam Smith, of whom Thomas Jefferson wrote, "In political economy, I think Smith's Wealth of Nations is the best book extant." Just in case Ms. Giffords is confused about where Thomas Jefferson stood on Free Market economics.

Adam Smith broke things down to four laws of economic freedom:

1. Freedom to try.
2. Freedom to buy.
3. Freedom to sell.
4. Freedom to fail.

This health care bill disrupts every one of these laws. Even now, doctors and others are not free to start their own clinics in any way they see fit to provide a competitive product in health care that people may or may not want.

Consumers of health care services (that's you and me), are not free to purchase the services we want at the prices we feel are fair. We cannot use our freedom to make the cost to benefit decisions regarding our very own lives. Our very personal and private health. We are not free to make those decisions even today. This bill makes this situation worse.

Health care providers are not free to sell their wares at prices that enable them to make the kind of living they desire and serve the people they wish.

No one is free to have their ideas fail so that the entire marketplace can learn from their failures.

The free market is the way to solve our problems, not more government.

In Cleon Skousen's "The 5000 Year Leap", he writes;

"The Founding Fathers agreed with Adam Smith that the greatest threat to
economic prosperity is the arbitrary intervention of the government into the
economic affairs of private business and the buying public. Historically,
this has usually involved fixing prices, fixing wages, controlling production,
controlling distribution, granting monopolies, or subsidizing certain
products."


This new health care proposal does all of these things.

In case you don't think that health care should be an "economic prosperity" question, let me readjust your attitude. Everything is economic, because the very act of a single person performing work on what God's Nature has left before us creates an economic event. By applying one's labor to anything, one has created value and has a right to be fairly compensated for that value if one wishes to part with it. A doctor has the most personal and direct economic interest in health care. It very simply is the means by which he feeds his family. He has a right and an obligation to charge as much as he is able to provide for his family. Neither you, nor the Federal Government has any right to dictate his labor or private business in our Constitution, nor by the natural rights of mankind. Only in a socialist state is this right manufactured and forced, unnaturally upon us. And only by destroying the liberties set forth in our Constitution can this bill succeed and survive.

I now return to Thomas Jefferson again, just in case Ms. Giffords is still confused about what he might think about her vote on our current health care proposals in Congress;

"The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to
divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is
competant to (perform best). Let the national government be entrusted with
the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State
governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what
concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the
counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by
dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great nation on down through
all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm
by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that
all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights
of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun?
The
generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter
whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or the aristocrats of a Venetian
senate."
Bergh, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 14:421

Do you hear that Gabrielle? Do you hear that Congress? Mr. President? Probably not.

One has to be ignorant of our Founding Fathers, and the reasons why we have a country at all, or must be a rather cynical and perhaps sinister practitioner of the misdirection and propaganda used by the likes of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini, to quote Thomas Jefferson for the purposes of justifying a vote for a centralized control and intervention into 1/6th of our nation's economy and to intervene in the most sacred and private business of all things; the relationship between a doctor and his/her patient.

And our people are sitting here, ignorant of our own heritage, letting it happen.

As a nation, we are replacing our faith in the sovereignty of God for a faith in the power of the State, a man-made creation, an idol.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory
of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of
birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave
them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be
dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator
,
who is blessed forever. Amen" Romans 1:22-25


Gabby, you may believe that you are doing the right thing. And I would like to believe that you believe that. But you are dreadfully wrong about economics and you are a socialist. And the natural conclusions of your belief system is a lie and is against God's nature and will destroy my country. I bid you confusion, disarray and failure in your political life and career, and wish you to be sent back home, to the private sector....preferably tomorrow.

My Congresswoman and the health care debate

From Gabrielle Giffords webpage:

“I am fully aware that the vote I cast for the Affordable Health Care for America Act will be one of the most important votes of my tenure in the House of Representatives,” Giffords said. “I am confident it is the right thing to do. I also am confident that by confronting the health insurance crisis facing our country, we are honoring the ideals that have been the foundation of our country for more than two centuries. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘Liberty is to the collective body, what health is to every individual body. Without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty, no happiness can be enjoyed by society.’”


Let me say that I agree with Ms. Giffords assessment of the importance of this legislation, but for the opposite reason that she cites. I think it will be her undoing.

I am also completely appalled that she quoted Thomas Jefferson, as if he would approve of this legislation. Let us not forget that Thomas Jefferson also wrote that "When a people fear its government, it is tyranny. When a government fears its people, liberty".

It takes a willful act of supreme ignorance to selectively quote TJ in support of a Federal Government run portion of our national economy. I think that Thomas Jefferson would have rather been shot, than to have been quoted for such a purpose. This is the "water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants" guy. What tyranny was he talking about? The tyranny of not having good health insurance? My goodness woman! He was talking about YOU! He was talking about a centralized government from across the sea making daily life decisions for the people of this country. That is why we started this country! To get away from centralized government!

While it is true that no happiness can be enjoyed without health, it is equally true that no liberty can be enjoyed when the government makes decisions for you and runs your life. Her use of the quote also misses the mark in that, to Jefferson, liberty IS health to a free society. There will be no happiness without liberty. None.

She completely misconstrued his statement. I know what she was doing. She was trying to quote one of our founding fathers to appear patriotic and pro-American. It is what Marxists, Alinsky-ites do. They take the words and deeds of people that have a positive image and they twist it to mean something completely different to suit their purposes of socialism.

This is another case where, the Democratic Party doesn't just get it 10% wrong, or 20% or even 90%. Their position is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of true. It is 100% wrong, 180 degrees out of phase with the truth.

NO ONE in their right mind, who has EVER read anything written by Thomas Jefferson, could have quoted him in support or somehow justifying a centralized government approach to ANYTHING. By today's standards, TJ would be a radical, gun-toting, religious zealot, and followed by the FBI and DHS. And TJ wasn't even a good Christian. He was a deist. But even a Deist recognized the Creator and His providential hand on human affairs, and would be considered a dangerous zealot by our current government's standards.

I encourage anyone to read some of TJ's letters. Read a biography about him...one that isn't completely absorbed by the Sally Hemmings controversy. Discover who and what this great American was. You too, will be disgusted when socialists claim some sort of common ground with this man. Nothing further could be the truth. TJ would see them as an enemy, not a friend. TJ believed in a "meritocracy". In fact, he coined the term. He would be appalled by our country today and deeply saddened by where we are right now. I can only imagine him getting one of his famous migraine headaches when he discovered that his words were being used as a justification for a tyrannical takeover of doctors, dentists, and nurses and all that goes with them.

In the spirit of TJ, we need to send this woman back to private life and out of the halls of power. We need another revolution, fought with a pen, and a keyboard. Read what your representative writes. Listen to what they say. Send them letters, emails. Join a political party and get these people out of Washington, before it becomes Rome.

UPDATE: For a pretty good idea, just read the list of grievances against King George written into the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson. Get past the Preamble that everyone reads, and look at the remainder of the document. Tell me where there was a desire for the centralized and distant power of the King to address health care issues or any possible analogous equivalent for that society at that time that you care to come up with.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Stricken

This is the second Sunday in a row where I have been deeply moved by the service at my church. Last week, I was stricken with a brief glimpse of sin that took my breath away. It was almost as if God revealed for a microsecond what He sees as He looks down upon us, His precious children.

It was during Communion and I was one of those people that looks up while everyone has their heads down in deep thought and prayer. I thought back to St. Augustine's Confessions and confrontation with my own sin for that brief moment brought tears to my eyes. I glanced around and knew that everyone in that room was in that same state of sin. I can't articulate it properly, but i could almost 'see' the sin in the air and feel God's Grace, solemnly, and lovingly, wiping it away.

I know. Weird. Crazy even. To think of myself writing this kind of creeps me out. I grew up pretty much an agnostic/atheist, fully immersed in the popular culture. When I first started going to my church, I felt like I had stepped onto the moon...or mars, or even bizzaro world.

If I could have seen into the future 20 years ago, where I would be today, I think I would have had a heart attack, or run screaming, or had a heart attack while i was running away and screaming. I actually listen to country music now. I was a metal freak back then. I have become Ned Flanders. Wow.

Well, this Sunday, was Reformation Sunday, where churches of the Reform Theology bent, celebrate Martin Luther's act of nailing the 95 theses upon that fated Wittenberg church door. The music was divine. I don't even know what it was, but it mixed latin chant type stuff with english and we had the translations and words up on the screen. Our choir is amazing, and I actually wept at the beauty of the sound.

Then our pastor went into the impact to modern culture of the Reformation and the doctrines of Justification by Faith. Jesus has offered you a free gift. All you have to do is reach out and accept His invitation.

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you
rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble
in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and
my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30


Isn't that what we all want and need? Good night and I pray that God Bless you and yours. Truly.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Thou Shalt Not Covet

"You shall not covet your neighbhor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor" - Exodus 20:17


How is socialism any different than an institutionalized disobedience of the Tenth Commandment?

Socialists believe that if only people had enough material wealth, they wouldn't disobey the other commandments. They would be good people. This is the essence of the Communist Manifesto, and secular humanism; the idea that Man is essentially good and the domineering, corrupted culture and population density make them bad.

Christianity says the opposite. Mankind has fallen from Grace by disobedience to God. God laid out the criteria on which Mankind would be judged and how they could maintain holiness and proved repeatedly throughout history than no one can comply with it. Only the salvific blood of Jesus Christ can wash away your sins and make you Holy in the sight of God. No one is without sin. No, not one.

The 10th Commandment is significant here, because, at its root, socialism is its precise and diabolical opposite. How can one even discuss socialism without discussing the property of other people in a covetous manner? You can't. The entire philosophy is founded upon the notion that some people have more stuff and are more fortunate than other people. How can we talk about the salaries of other people without committing this sin? How can we bemoan the fact that some class of people have more stuff than another, without committing the collective sin of coveting our neighbor's house? We can't.

You can dress it up as concern for the less fortunate, and charity all you like, but the entire conversation isn't valid. Charity is done, not to help the poor, but to humble the mighty. The poor have no biblical expectation that they will be taken care of, nor any right to another's time, labor, energy, or love. They can only hope for mercy and deliverance. The commandments and scriptural discussion of these things is for the benefit of the giver. You see Mankind is fallen and sinful and proud, and selfish. To cleanse the heart, one must be rid of one's attachments to material things and find a way to put others ahead of yourself. Without a clean heart, you cannot possibly be in a right relationship with God, and sanctification is impossible. Expecting someone else to give you happiness or money or car payments, is no less selfish and inconsiderate than someone that refuses to help those in need.

God gets in the way of Socialism if anyone actually understands the ends and means of it all. That is why socialism and atheism are so closely allied much of the time. Given its way with society, to run its course, socialism will start with the tenth commandment, but it won't take long to destroy the rest of them as well. In fact, they have made good progress on most of them already, don't you think?


Thursday, October 1, 2009

Walkin' the Tightrope

I wrote this back on 9/10/09, and didn't finish it and publish it until tonight.

Prevarication

I have stumbled upon the one word that sums up our current US foreign policy;

Prevarication.

This is especially true in regards to our policy (or lack thereof), towards, about, around and behind, Israel. What are we doing? If I were an Israeli, I would be VERY nervous right now.

I came across a nice speech made by Virginia Congressman, Eric Cantor to AIPAC.

Video is here.

He calls out evil as evil. His story about the Treblinka survivors trying to help the German Jewish workers escape and their response to those Poles, is astounding. It truly is the frog in the pot.

I have read enough history to know that when the proverbial fecal matter hits the centrifugal air-displacement device, the people that are denying this and covering up what is happening will go down in history as villains. And the masses that turned their collective eye away from evil, away from the enemy at the gates?

How would you feel if a very great evil happened, you could have stopped it, and you chose to do nothing? There is evil in this world and it must be confronted. This prevarication on the part of the President is...immoral.

Skin crawling explained...

Check out Alonzo Rachel's explanation as to why Christians and conservatives are so disturbed by what they see as worship of our President. If your skin didn't crawl from my last post, maybe Zo can tell you why it should.

A message to Obama supporters: if you don't want conservatives accusing you of not be respectful of Christians and people of faith, stop taking sacred texts, songs, hymns, and themes and inserting the name of Obama in place of God or Jesus.

To back up Zo's point, I will paste below the lyrics to the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the tune of which those school kids were singing their Obama praise song to. Please note the opening line, "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" and "He died to make men holy, so let's fight to make men free!"

This song is about Jesus, people. Not Obama. Stop taking songs about Jesus and replacing Jesus with Obama. At the lowest level, for those that don't believe in God, it is disrespectful. For others, it's creepy. Why would you want to worship ANY man? Why structure any support material for political persona's to mimic God, and Jesus? At worst, for those of us that do believe in the salvific grace of Jesus Christ, this is nothing other than a spectacularly audaciaous display of blasphemy, encountered in the Bible in only the darkest corners that allude to the devil himself. For observant Jews and Christians, this is serious and scary stuff. It is totally inappropriate and unsettling. Cut it out.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on."
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Our God is marching on.


Now go back and listen to those school kids singing this song and listen to their words, and tell me that your skin isn't crawling...

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Throw me a bone, Mr. President

I read tonight the Fox News web page equivalent of the front page and i find:

1. Obama is indecisive in Afghanistan.

2. Throws Poland and Czeck Republic under the bus.

3. Defends AG Holder's agressive pursuit of special operators and intelligence personnel.

Mr. President. Cannot ONE day go by without doing something to upset those of us from the center-right? Your positions are alarming and so far to the left of anythink ever seen on a national stage before, you could at least give us some time to absorb what you are doing, eh?

I guess not. I am still trying to figure you out. This is either brilliant Alinsky-esque attacks, shocking the system with so much change and crisis, that it shuts down; or you are really naive.

It seems to me that it would be good politics to throw an occasional bone to the opposition, to take the sting out of their remarks. I don't see any bones being thrown, except for the ones underneath those brass knuckles to keep pummeling my country with. Which begs the question; is this hubris and overreach? Or do you truly expect to maintain power so handily that you are not worried about elections anymore?

You could even throw a small bone by appearing on Fox News for an interview. You scheduled interviews with five networks, and left out Fox.

Coward.

UPDATE: Zbigniew Bzrezinsky was quoted saying that US should confront militarily Israeli planes if they try and fly over Iraq to defend themselves against Iran's nukes. Obama makes a juvenile speech at the UN about global warming, then tops it off with another speech, effectively throwing Israel under the bus, just in case you were about to accuse me of getting excited about ZB, the old has-been. Then Benjamin Netanyahu makes one of the best speeches I've heard about the rights of nations to defend themselves, drawing great distinctive lines between the good guys and bad guys around the world. Whatever the leftie loons may have felt about W, multiply it by ten and you are starting to get the idea on how i am feeling about the current state of politics in my country. It has only been a couple of days since my last post. Can we have a breather?!? Mr. President, please go on vacation again!

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Something I can congratulate the President on...

President Obama finally did something that I agree with yesterday.

I wonder if the media will listen? I wonder if he really means it, or if he is just saying it so as to placate some criticism? I know that is cynical, but it really ties in with what I think most conservatives are thinking at this point.

I think the question in the collective conservative mind is this; Is Barak Obama an inexperienced idealist, or is he a brilliant politician, pushing his agenda to radically change this nation as quickly as he can so that we reach the point of no return.

Being the skeptical and eternally reluctant conspiracy theorist, I have to believe the latter. I think the man is genuine and believes what he says much of the time. I also beleive that he is not above stretching the truth and lying to get the proper tone for his sound bytes and speeches.

So, I think he actually means that he doesn't think that the criticism is about race. He needs to say so more forcefully, because the MSM is doing everything they can to push that storyline, and he is the only one that can squash it.

I will take it on face value and congratulate the President for trying to dampen the flames of the conversation and keep them on the true arguement; the issue of the proper role of government in our society. If we actually have that debate, it would be a good one, and he and his allies will lose.

UPDATE: I have a correction in the third paragraph from the bottom, first sentence, where I said "...I have to believe the latter", I really meant "former".

UPDATE 2: The President went on Letterman and this topic of race came up and he said something to the effect that he was black during the election campaign too and that the latest stuff has nothing to do with race. He earns respect from me when he does that. Kudos to you, Mr. President. Keep that stuff up. You won't win me on your socialism, but you will have my respect and gratitude if you keep it civil and honest.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Walkin' the Tightrope

"Let a man regard us in this manner, as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God." 1Corinthians 4:1



"For to everyone who has shall more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. And cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth" Matthew 25:29,30



I have been struggling and wrestling with the proper role of a Christian in modern American politics and culture. I read chapter four in 1Corinthians and come away initially with a message that Christians should focus on Christ and forget about everything else. This is true, per se, but I mean in the sense that there is no involvement whatsoever in the politics of the day. We should focus upon only serving others and ignoring the deeds and events of the day. I call this the ostrich mentality, or the "meek" school of Christianity, waiting to inherit the earth.

But I look at the broader picture in which Paul writes this letter (i.e. in context), and I think he was speaking to a proud church that had a lot of trouble casting away their love of money and power, much like modern America. In this context, the exhortation is to love Christ more than these other things.

I wonder how much legal authority the average inhabitant of Corinth actually possessed. The Roman authority left much local power alone, as long as they received their proper taxes and homage, they didn't interfere too much. So, did these church-members get to vote? Did they have any political clout? Any duty?

The reason I ask, is because in this country, we do have these things. And the counter-arguement to the "meek" school, is that we were given incredible bounty in this country and we are expected to do great things with that bounty because of it.

The "meeks" may argue that by spending their lives in poverty, serving others, they are growing the Kingdom and serving God's people. I agree. However, how many more people could you serve and help, if you were a man of resources and influence? The arguement is that of gaining as much influence in this world as you can, while still remaining a Christian, and using that influence and wealth to further God's will. It is a dangerous enterprise, but one worth taking.

If you are born with some measure of ability, wealth, station and influence, should you not use those resources to further the Kingdom? If you work hard and succeed in your life's work, shouldn't you use those resources? I don't mean to detract from the "meek". In fact I greatly admire their work and recognize the holiness of their dedication. But I think God calls us all in different ways.

We live in a country that has proven to be the most successful economic, and political experiment ever conducted by mankind. Second place is so distant, it is hard to measure the differences between contenders well enough to decide who gets the honor. We have been given much. The success of this country has been the greatest boon to worldwide Christianity ever to exist. Shouldn't our work for the Kingdom include preserving and perpetuating that which has provided so much? Don't we have an obligation as Christians to get involved and active in the governance of a free society, or risk losing it all?

Now, I have just crossed an invisible, but very important line, in that I have just created a Biblical justification for political activism. I am walking a tight rope, and if I lean too much to the left or right, I fall. We don't want clergymen running our government, but we can't have God divorced from our decision-making process any longer. I read scripture for wisdom, but have to be careful not to have my desires color my interpretations.

I was born a fighter by nature. I am contentious, argumentative, and strong-willed. Is it possible, that those are my spiritual gifts which God will use for His purposes? Or do I need to keep working on being meek? Some of my friends teased me that offending people was my spiritual gift. I laughed heartily at that, but inside I know there is some truth to it.

Do we focus on loving others to the exclusion of taking a stand, or do we start participating in a political process that gets messy and embattled and risk chasing away those that might otherwise seen some of Christ in you? Politics can be extremely contentious and very un-Christ-like.

Do we try? Or do we focus on other things? What about facing evil?

I have written in the past about my beliefs in fighting for what is right. I believe in standing up and resisting evil, with force if necessary. Is that me? Is it Biblical? Is it Pride?

I believe that is can be all of those things, and that only by putting my trust in God will I be able to stay on this tightrope.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Diabollos in the Press

I recieved a "devil’s advocate" perspective from someone I love and admire. I started to respond to that perspective and decided to just "blog" it, without revealing the source or directly involving that person. I think that person would appreciate it ;-)

Note in a previous post that I state that I believe that SPLC was started for honorable reasons and I say now that they probably perform honorable and valuable services still. I don't know. But I do know that their "Hatewatch" website is morally corrupted and dishonest, whatever the honor and valor their original intent may contain. I don't believe that the ends justify the means. Neither does God.

MSNBC is so corrupted that they should lose their FCC license. I truly believe that they are performing the equivalent task to crying "fire" in a crowded theatre, hoping that their cameras will be in place to catch the debauchery and chaos when people start trying to get out. Freedom always comes with a price. Freedom of the press means a freedom to disagree and criticize the government. I does not give them a right to lie. I realize that there is a lot of grey area here, but this issue is as clear as can be (I was going to say "black and white", but it seemed particularly ill-advised for the topic of this blog post).

I am concerned not for juvenile cheerleading for one side and demonizing the other, but rather calling out unacceptable behavior anywhere that I find it. If racism is bad, then it is bad for everyone. If racism is harming people somewhere, and your cause d’etre is to root out racism, then you actually HURT your cause if you cry “wolf”, when there are none present.

I also question whether “racism” really means the same thing that it used to mean. To me racism is where people are robbed of their God-given rights by others, due to nothing other than their ethnic identity. I don’t think it applies to picturing someone of a particular identity in your head for a stereotype. I am a white, WASP guy, and I have a lot of stereotypical habits and behaviors of such a guy. It is not racism to notice this, point it out and even to make fun of it. Our pop culture makes a living doing this. It is also not racism to notice, point out and make fun of other stereotypes. It is human nature to classify people. Our brains are simply incapable of NOT doing that.

Of course, I also think that derogatory humor to any individual or group is disrespectful, rude, very un-Christ-like, and unacceptable…and can be racism if taken too far. Anytime someone is derided and de-humanized it is morally wrong to do so as it is engaging in the sin of Pride, which is the father of all sins.

I also think that our brains are capable of separating the distinction of group tendencies and individuals that stand out from a group. In fact, that is the next refining step in how our brains classify things so that we can process. Our brains classify a particular person into a larger group for general and then starts to notice the differences between that global stereotype and the individual before us. This is no different that the entire classification system of plants and animals. You know, Kingdom, Phyla, whatever, whatever, Genus, Species, and all that business. It is a short-hand way of processing information. There is nothing wrong with that and it doesn’t need to be irradicated from our universe. It’s just the way people think.

I think there is an entire industry of people that Dinesh D’Souza, in his book "The End of Racism", refers to as “Race Merchants”, that keep the spectre of racism alive in the minority communities in order to stir them up into a frenzy to make them easier to manipulate. I will not try to argue that discrimination and racism don’t exist, but I think there is an entrenched lobby of people in politics whose vested interest in our society is to never let racism die. They don’t want King’s Dream to come true. They don’t want people to focus solely on the content of their character, because if they did, they would stop reminding us and everyone else the color of everyone’s skin.

I honestly don’t care what anyone’s skin color is, but I care very deeply about what is in their heart. I am culturally discerning. I think there is an objective truth about how the world works, and how it doesn’t work, and I think the evidence so plentiful that the opposition to my beliefs fairly stumbles upon it laying everywhere. I believe that objective truth is covered so deeply and comprehensively in the Bible. I also believe that the founders of this country tapped into it better than anyone has ever done in the history of mankind.

It is not racist to disagree with someone on a philosophical or political point, simply because your ethnicities differ from one another. It is not racist to think that Socialism is a failed and un-Godly belief system. It is not racist to disagree with Barak Obama. It is not racist to think that people shouldn't be given mortgages that they can't pay back. It is not racist to be resentful that our politicians are bailing out companies that should have been let fail. It is not racist to be alarmed at how much money is being spent, or to be afraid of the consequences of the government taking over private corporations, breaking private party contracts, setting up snitch email addresses for citizens to tattletale on their neighbors, trying to access private citizen's bank accounts or raise taxes too high.

This is just common sense, even of the Thomas Paine variety.

Our country was conceived in liberty. It is the only one on earth founded that way. I've made this point before, and I'll make it again. On the mother of all political spectrums, there is a continuum upon which the USA stands alone on one extreme side, and every single other form of government ever devised by man is on the other side of the scale. All of them.

Racism is being used right now for despicable purposes by "accusers", or "diabollos" in Greek. This is the very word for "devil". If capitalize the word, we talk about the Father of Lies, the Devil himself. Satan.

Bearing false witness against your neighbor, was not placed last on the list of Ten Commandments because it wasn't important. It causes terrible damage to a person's reputation and ability to function in polite society.

This behavior by the political left is an attempt to keep me quiet, or pay a hefty social price for opposing their agenda. It is intimidation, 101.

I am angry about it. I am justifiably and righteously angry about it, and I think everyone should be as well.

Less Berserk, but still concerned...

Check this out. And for a better coverage on local news, here.

This was on Fox News' "The Fox Nation", website, and blogroll. Right here in Tucson, an Hispanic man promoting Obama's healthcare reform, interrupts a Tucson Teaparty townhall of their own and, when confronted, he elbows one of the Tea Party members in the face. This man was escorted out by police and then interviewed. He claimed that the hall was filled with "angry white people".

This is part of the leftist strategy to blame everything on the "angry white people". If you disagree with the current President, or Congress in any way, you are labeled a racist and a hatemonger.

I am going to Gabby Giffords' townhall meeting tomorrow. I sure hope this guy doesn't show up with his friends looking for trouble. There are going to be a lot of Tea Party types at this townhall and a lot of concerned citizens.

Does anyone else see this and tremble, as I do? I've read about stuff like this going on in history books, but this is live. I pray for peace and sanity amongst all of those involved.

Update: Channel 13 took a much less sensationalistic approach and didn't even mention the incident. I think this was much more responsible and fair to the Tea Party group. I wonder why they never mentioned the elbow incident? Draw your own conclusions. I am still scratching my head on that one.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Berserk, Part II

I ran into this link and a whole new world has been opened to my eyes.

Check it out. It is a watch group for "haters", apparently like me. It is run by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Like all liberal groups it seems to have started innocently enough, but they have been radicalized to a fever pitch and are resorting to the same sort of stuff that sent me over the edge in the last post.

Well, they are claiming in this article that the whole incident with the AR-15 rifle was staged by a right wing hatemonger racist and then proceeds to link together, with innuendo and breathy statements; Ernie Hancock, The Arizona Viper Militia, William Kostric from New Hampshire (the guy who was on Chris Matthews' show and showed up at a NH Obama event with a pistol on his hip), Timothy McVeigh (yes, the OK bomber), and Randy Weaver.

Now there may be some truth to some associations here, but keep in mind, not once did they mention that the guy with the rifle was black, and they spent an aweful lot of publishing "inches" herding the cattle towards the "racist" conclusion for the whole lot of protesters. The little tidbit about the black protester doesn't fit that narrative, so they leave it out. I'm not arguing that this stunt wasn't staged or that the guys involved are a little 'fringy' when it comes to guns. But they cannot be racists or white supremicists when a black man is the one carrying the rifle.

Here is some of the actual interview. And here is an actual article that reports some facts. Note that this guy is part of several anti-government groups that critics claim are racist, but he has never felt unwelcome. Hmm. Racists that don't care that he's black? Maybe their not racist? Maybe they are gun nuts. Maybe they are anti-government, but, by definition, they are not racist.

The SPLC website insinuates racism in every article about the Minutemen on their webpage too. Including this article about two hispanic men, one of them a Minute Man, arguing about the proper tactics for solving the illegal immigrant problem in this country. How can an issue where native hispanics are on the side of secure borders and a sane immigrant policy and members of the Minutemen, be an issue about race?

Indeed. How can an issue about the Second Amendment to the United States be about race? How can an opposition to Socialism be about race? Why is it that ANY disagreement with a Democrat these days means that you are a racist?

This is shouting down the opposition, straight up. There is no question that there is a concerted effort on the part of leftwing groups to shout down and intimidate people by calling them racist and anything else they think will stick. What they are doing is just fanning the flames. Reporting the truth will have a way of weeding the radicals out. We live in a conservative country. People don't particularly like radicals of any stripe and by reporting incidents dishonestly, they press has no credibility whatsoever, which makes people cynical and easy prey for propaganda.

Now, i could write some conspiracy theory on that one too!

Chris B. was a gun-rights enthusiast that wanted to bring his issue, front and center and get attention. We can argue whether he made a good decision or not. We can argue about how comfortable or how worried we are about people carrying guns openly in Arizona. But we cannot call Chris B. a white supremiscist racist or consider him part of any such group. And we cannot intelligently discuss this incident with the information that the mainstream press gave us and we cannot have anything resembling intelligent conversation by calling everyone that disagrees with Barak Obama and the Democrats racists.

There is no there, there. I understand the politically driven leftist groups like SPLC will always distort things to make their points, but MSNBC, CNN, and all of the others have no excuse. Why did all of the salient information only come a week or two later from AZ Central.com? Why isn't this in the mainstream?

Maybe more on this one...

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Berserk

I haven't written in a few weeks because of some rumblings in my head. But I saw this and went berserk.

Tell me I am not driving off of the cliff. This may be the most blatant propaganda I have ever seen in this country in my life. It is unbelievable. I never would have thought that I would see this. It is the stuff of Hollywood fiction or from fascist countries, not America; not my country. This is like the Gleiwitz Incident that the Nazis used as a pretense to invade Poland. This demonization of one’s political enemies is hard to call anything but evil. No good can come of it and the people involved are despicable.

Luckily, there were other new organizations that filmed it and, because of YouTube, email, blogs and the internet we can decipher the truth. But what about in the near future as technology gets better? Will the powers that be find a way of controlling the airwaves in America so that we only see the kind of stuff that MSNBC puts out in this hit-piece?

Follow the link to AZ Central web page for the original story for more complete footage of our rifle-bearer.

Notice the MSNBC focus on only the rifle and pistol, carefully avoiding any glimpse of the man’s skin or face. Then they flash to a completely different guy (a white guy), wearing a similar colored shirt, with the full frontal shot, giving the impression that the guy with the rifle and the guy talking to the reporter is the same guy (it is not). Then they use this entire segment to talk about how people in America are angry that we have a black President, and about white supremicists and how these protest groups are generated by hate groups. This is classic bait and switch of street magicians, Herman Goebels and Josef Stalin. Scary stuff.

Now let's draw some imaginary lines between some things that have happened recently and see if we have the makings of a conspiracy theory;

1. Now imagine the White House is making a call to the producer to "suggest" such a piece.

2. Imagine the party with a super majority offering to bail-out the failing leftwing newspapers and declining news outlets.

3. Imagine that news outlet is owned by a couple of left-leaning mega-corporations like GE and Microsoft.

4. Imagine that at least one of these corporation stands to make billions of dollars in a massive Cap and Trade bill just passed by Congress (GE).

5. Imagine an enthusiastic cooperation between the makers of the news and the reporters of the news (here, here, here to wretch and here to get a summary and perspective) to promote and support their grab of power and make it all seem like sunshine and apple pie.

How far off am I? I have never been a fan of conspiracies, but this is happening in front of us. I don’t necessarily think it is as sinister as I am alluding to, but it looks really bad and sets the stage for someone to do it later if no one stops it. Am I crazy? At the very least, the brazen appearance of impropriety should make people blush, should it not?

If this was all, I would agree that I am probably crazy. But add to that the unbelievable decision to have the government own two of the three auto makers and bail out major banks and own them and then pass a stimulus bill, flirt with cap and trade and then push a health care agenda, all while the economy is reeling, makes one check one's head at the door does it not? Am I awake? Is this really the America I grew up in? Then you add the White House snitch line, the emailing "corrections to misleading stories" to people than never registered to the White House page (were they on a "list" acquired by the snitch line?), and Napolitano's profiling of radicals that includes pretty much 90% of the GOP and you have the makings of a HUGE conspiracy theory that we are supposed to ignore?

I urge any of you to actually read the bills that our elected officials can't or won't and then convince me that I am wrong.

Have any of you read any part of the HR 3200 bill? If you read ANY part of it you will start down the road I am on right now in a hurry. There are parts of that bill that give the Federal government the right to go into your bank account at any time of their choosing for their purposes.

Check this link out if you want to read some of it in summary form.

Click here to read the actual bill in its original if you don’t believe what you read in my previous link (you won’t), and then see that it is a true and accurate representation of what’s there (it is).
Talk me down. Pull me back from the ledge…or hold my hand and let’s all jump together…

My buddy shared with me this Viktor Frankl quote, which I love;

"We have come to know man as he really is. After all, man is that being who
invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who
entered those gas chambers upright, with the
Lord's prayer or the Shema
Yisrael
on his lips."
I believe in the extraordinary evil that ordinary people are capable of, and I believe that in the extraordinary good that the least of us are capable of and all in between. I believe that putting power into people's hands is a temptation to evil that many cannot resist and our only defense is not to limit the number of people that have power in our society but rather limit the amount of power any one person or group of people can have.

The size of government must shrink. Depending upon which political party is in control when the music stops and the dictator is here, some of us will be looking for the door. We are all designing our own gas chamber now. I, for one do not want the choice between the designer and the angelic grace of those singing praises to God while being gassed. I want to sing angelic praises to God in a free country and leave the same freedom to my children.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

A study of "Common Sense", by Thomas Paine, Part I

I am reading "Common Sense" all the way through for the first time. This is hard for me to admit, because I consider myself fairly knowledgable of American History and of our country's founding in particular. But I have never read the document from front to back. I have referenced parts of it, but not gotten the totality of the document in my head or appreciated its brilliance or impact in any meaningful way before.

Now that I have, I am floored by the document. I have been quite literally stunned by reading it. I have come to passages that have forced me to put it down and ponder it for a week or more. I am still not done reading it. Each day that I read it, I need a couple of more to digest and think about it. It has been a slow read, but a rewarding one.

A couple of thoughts have come to me while reading it;

1. Why has this document not been read, in its entirety, by every high school student in America? This pamphlet literally changed the course of human history and it is part of our national heritage. It defines who we are as a people and should be a constant reminder to all of us as to where we come from. The reason why is that it is a boldly Christian document. Much like the Mayflower Compact, what little of it is in our children's history books are expunged from any explicitly Christian references. This is simply not acceptable. Non-Christians can benefit greatly from the arguments presented and understanding the document in the Christian context in which it was written. If their belief system is true, then they have nothing to fear from an historical document that contains Christian references.

2. It is time to discuss the themes and concepts of this document in a modern context and have a real and intelligent discussion of ideas in our polity. Politics in this country has degraded to an almost insufferable level. It seems that there is an inverse relationship between the length of the news cycle and the intellectual heft of the discussion and thought behind the discussion. We are in very real danger of losing our country to a semi-permanent political class of politicians and power-brokers that do not have the best interests of our children's posterity at heart when making decisions. We have a media that is so ignorant of our country's origins that it doesn't even know what it doesn't know, and a population that has been weened from the very font of liberty, which is our heritage, by a mindless march towards some ethereal concept of "equality". Our country was founded upon Liberty, not Equality. And it still runs in our veins, I am convinced of it.

I have decided to write a series of essays on my thoughts while reading Paine's great work. As always, my intent is to provoke thought and discussion. If our political debates in this country were as high-minded and intellectual as those that our founding fathers had, we would find ourselves in a much better place than we can see today, I am convinced. So I am attempting to do my part by investigating how we got here in the first place.

In my next post I will start with the Christian character of the work, and why it should be encouraging to Christians, and informative to others and should not be threatening to those that do not share that faith. The work is in no way outdated or irrelevant in today's political climate which will come as a surprise to some and relief to others. My desire is for every American to read "Common Sense" and revive our national consciousness of our heritage for which we have so much to be thankful.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

An Ass for a Lion, or a Lion for a Lamb?

"One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in
kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently
turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion." - Thomas Paine,

Common Sense


I cannot think of a proper modern corellary for socialism, but there is a truism here in the making. Paine argued forcefully and eloquently against monarchy. We need a modern Paine to argue forcefully and eloquently against progressivism-statism-fascism-communism-socialism-ism-ism. The only difference is that Paine had to make allowances for the occasional good and righteous king that was actually a boon to his people. No collective form of government ever known to mankind can make such a claim.

Everyone can concieve of a church group or small, community of worshippers whom are persecuted and hide in the shadows, sharing their wealth, skills and fortunes in a relationship of love. This is a picture of the early Christian church. If we could guarantee that all people were dedicated, committed Christians that lived their faith and never disagreed upon interpretation of scripture, I think we could make this form of government work to some degree.

Meanwhile, back on earth, people are sinners. They are prideful, greedy, dishonest, cruel, inconsiderate, and many other wonderful things. Even if they weren't, there are points of disagreement even within a single Christian denomination that would drive men to compete and attempt to dominate and win the argument, even under the best of circumstances.

If this is the best that we could do within a single worldview, a single religious denomination, where one could assume the most consistent agreement upon right and wrong, and general decision-making, then what hope does any nation of millions have? What hope does our nation made up of millions of disparate and diverse backgrounds, faiths, philosophies, and worldviews? What possible hope have we for this imaginary utopia, promised by slick politicians? None.

In fact, what socialism is, and all of its variation-isms, is an attempt to create utopia - or heaven - here on earth. Is that not the dream of the socialist paradise? No one gets hurt, everyone has enough money and food. Everyone has a comfortable place to live. Everyone has respect for each other and they all get along great. Isn't that what the socialist promise is?

This is a direct attempt to create paradise on earth. Perfection, created by Man. It reminds me of a passage in Isaiah,

"But you said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my
throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the
recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I
will make my self like the Most High." Isaiah 14:13-14


This is the overreach of Lucifer talking. Heaven cannot be constructed on earth by any men, and those that claim that they can must be guarded against, for they are ravenous lions. What socialists don't want to face is that everyone isn't respectable, kind, good, decent, honest, peaceful, loving, and respectful of others. In fact few are this way.

Socialism preys upon the pride of men, and that inner beast that says to himself, "I'm a good man". It preys upon this notion and lets every man believe that he is good, and therefore so are most others. It is only a bad few that spoil the pot for the rest of us. If we can just round those fellows up and put them somewhere, you know, where they can't hurt anyone any longer, then we can get back to this business of making the perfect nation.

We can create a nation in our own image. Devised by men, created by men, ruled by men, better that the rest of us. That is how it works.

The smarter, connected, or just luckier few, start seeing themselves as better than the others and we can make decisions for the "great unwashed", the "dumb rednecks", or whatever pejorative term you would prefer. They become the intelligencia and start designing this utopia for the rest of us. The problem they have is that it decsends into cronyism and mafia-style relationship peddling like every other form of tyrannical government ever to stain the soil of this earth.

Like I said in previous posts, as far as types of government or political spectrums, there is the United States of America, as created by the Founding Fathers on one side the fence, and every single other form of government ever devised by man is on the OTHER side of the fence. All of them.

Socialism promises ease and comfort for the least of us. It promises dignity, respect, material security. It promises to be our paschal lamb. What it delivers is a ravenous beast that cannot easily be caged once it is released. No socialism isn't monarchy and delivers not an ass for a lion, but rather a lion for a lamb.

Friday, June 26, 2009

Simple but Difficult

"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid,
which is Jesus Christ" 1Corinthians 3:11


Why do we continually try to figure a way around the obvious, difficult task of life? The recipe for a successful life is laid out in the Bible very clearly and very simply. A Christian does not have to remember much, does not have to ponder much as far as the basic course of his life. The strategy is simple. But it is difficult.

Men are asked to lay down their desires, their aggression, their vengeful hearts, their walls of protection surrounding their hearts. They are asked to trust in a God that cannot be seen or heard by normal means, and believe in events from two thousand years ago that sound today like fairy tales. They are asked to love and be loved, which may be the most difficult of all.

But to those brave enough to try, they find peace. They find solace in a busy world and a rest for the spirit and the mind not to be found anywhere else.

I have a very active mind, one that will keep me awake at night, and drive me to distraction by day. I am constantly caught up in what the world is doing, curiosity may have killed the cat, and it may kill me yet.

I accepted Christ only a few years back. I had been researching religion and faith in a self-study fashion for some years and my mind was tickled with a fascination with the Passion of Christ. Not the movie, per se, but the event (as this prediliction pre-dated Mel Gibson's movie). I was struck by the extraordinary detail and color of the accounts written in a piece of fiction called "Master and Margarita" by Mikail Bulgakov. I was haunted by the description. I had read some pseudo-scholarly works questioning whether Jesus really ever existed, whether He was ever supposed to be God, claiming that He never claimed to be God, etc., etc. One fairly intellectual-seeming work even laid out a case that His body was never found because it was probably thrown down the hill with the rest and the wild dogs carried away His bones.

But here was this vibrant story of the Passion. I thought to myself "how could anyone write this if some scholarly people don't even think He existed for real?" As I read more and more, the philosophical angle came into play. Logic kicked in and there was no answer for the question, "who was Jesus?"

Who was Jesus? Was He God, or man? Was he a wise dude, and nice philanthropist, a motivational speaker? The only answer that fits all of the facts that we know is that He is and was who He said He was, "I AM".

Not long after I accepted Christ intellectually, I did so vocally to the pastor of my current church. Once I accepted Christ, He didn't take long to test me. All that was good was threatened and pieces of my life started crumbling around me. Inexplicably, just when I thought that it would all end and I would break, there would be a respite. A calm in the storm around me. It was here that I met Jesus personally. This happened over and over again, giving me rest just long enough. I could feel Him working on me in the depths of my heart, digging out some very painful stuff and replacing it with love. It never could have happened if I didn't go through all of that stuff and be so overwhelmed that I came to the end of myself. I had nothing left. At that moment, I would say a prayer, and He would be there.

You see He is rest.

As a man, my inner desire is that of Conan; "To crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and to hear the lamentations of the women" We are all easily stirred to anger and fear, and we guard our hearts and harden them to love. We are tasked by this world to do the dirty work of the world and there is no place for soft hearts and weak minds. We want to dominate those around us and have others do our bidding. We find attractive displays and promises of power. It is the short cut to solving problems. More power.

Psalm 46 speaks directly to this;

"Come behold the works of the Lord, who has wrought desolations in the
earth. He makes wars to cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow
and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariots with fire. Cease striving
and know that I am God."


And it tells us to settle those thoughts. Cease striving. Be still. Rest. The God that can create the universe can do everything. You do not need to agitate your mind. You do not need to worry. Be at peace.

Isn't that what we all desire down deep? When was the last time you could truly relax, without a care in the world? Have you ever truly experienced that? I think that promise is one of the most alluring promises of God. Adam cursed us to toil in the earth and so toil me must, and in that toil we find a yearning for the ease and comfort of the rest in the Lord that we were created to enjoy.

Why can't we trust in Him more? Why can't we lay aside our troubles? Why do we get distracted so easily that we lose sight of the important things and succumb to sin and fear? May you burn the chariots, Lord and set our minds at rest.

Jesus calls to us,

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you
rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble
in heart; and you shall find rest for your souls. For My yoke is
easy, and my burden is light." Matt 11:29


Jesus, my mind is astir tonight. Give me rest. Let me be still.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Wisdom of Men and the Holy Spirit

"that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of
God." - 1Corinthians 2:5

I have been struggling with the role of Christians in modern society and my role in my own country that, at least in principle, exercises self-rule. I think that the passages in Romans 13 about subservience and submission to the governmental authority over you is valid, we must also consider that we ARE the government in this country, or at least, that is what our Constitution says.

I find much solace and wisdom in Hugh Hewitt's "In, But Not Of",

"History has known periods of greater and lesser human energy, and those
periods of greater energy have been periods when ambition was a passion in good
standing. In "The Century of Louis XIV", Voltaire remarks on the four most
admired historical epochs: Periclean Athens, Augustan Rome, Italy under the
Medicis, and France under Louis XIV. Since Voltaire's day, one might wish to add
to the list the United States from presidents Washington through Jefferson and
England under Queen Victoria. But what all these periods have in common is their
lack of equivocal feeling about ambition. Not that ambition in any of these
periods failed to produce its usual perversities, from the Athenian Alcabiades
to the American Aaron Burr. But whatever its excesses, ambition has at all times
been the passion that best releases the energies that make civilization
possible...
In the Christian view, the pendulum has swung back and forth,
from the doctrine that the meek shall inherit the earth to Max Weber's
perception (set forth in "The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism)
that, among the Calvinists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a sign of
being among God's elect is success on earth. As a general statement it seems
unexceptional to say that Christianity has not necessarily despised ambition,
although it has tended to view excessive preoccupation with ambition for worldly
things as misguided" Joseph Epstein "Ambition"

Hewitt goes on to quote Deitrich Bonhoeffer;

"If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders",
Deitrich Bonhoeffer explained to his sister, "then I can't, as a Christian,
simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead.
I must try and wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver."

I also go back to the Gospel of Matthew and the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). We have been given so much in this country, that I believe that we can be like the servant that was given the five talents. God forbid that we end up to be the servant that was handed only one talent and buried it, afraid to lose what we had! As Christians, we have an obligation to engage the culture and seek political power, and be the salt and the light in this world. Ronald Reagan spoke of the U.S. being "a city set upon a hill...", a line he took from the same Biblical passage. We in America are that city that Jesus spoke of in Matthew;

"You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how
will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown
out and trampled under foot by men. You are the light of the world. A
city set upon a hill cannot be hidden
. Nor do men light a lamp, and put
it under the peck measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who
are in the house. Let you light shine in such a way that they may see your good
works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Matthew 5:13-16

We have this balancing act to do as Christians. While seeking political influence, we must not lose our love of each other and compassion for our fellow images of God in this world. This does not mean we need to vote for socialist policies, but it does mean that when we choose our words, they must be loving. When we choose our political stances, it must be done in love, communicated with love. When we choose our political leaders, they must be held accountable to a higher standard, or they tarnish not just themselves, or us, but our entire efforts and our ability to glorify God in the broader culture.

If we engage the culture, we need not be afraid because we have been given a powerful tool that no worldly man has in the Holy Spirit. Secular types may scoff at this and many Christians wonder if they really have it. I can tell you that it is real. It only requires communion and communication with God on a regular basis and keeping one's nose in the good book.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who
is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which
things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught
by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words."
1Corinthians 2:12-13


If we allow Jesus to work in us and through us, there is no end to what we can accomplish. I disagree with any that suggest that politics is a worldly affair and we should focus our attention of prayer and submission. This is surrender to the "meek" philosophy when there is no need for such a thing in modern America. I am not ashamed of the Gospel and it shall set us all free.

The number one thing Christians should think about is that freedom to exercise their religious beliefs is only as secure as we are willing to defend it. Our current direction in worldly, secular culture is to cut Christians out of our society. We simply must engage and participate in our current culture and politics or we will become the meek very quickly.

Jesus commanded us to "make disciples of all nations", it is the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20). Is this easier to do as the meek, subservient and powerless, and perhaps persecuted minority of a domineering secular and wicked culture? Or as a robust and free, and vibrant middle or ruling class of the greatest nation God has ever set upon the earth? America has been the greatest boon to worldwide evangelism in history. Let us not give up that boon so easily. Let us not let freedom go without a fight.

1Corinthians is a letter of instruction of how to operate in a wicked and sinful culture and grow the Church. We may not win the battle, but we will have no good excuse when we stand before the Lord and have to explain why we did nothing at all, while we had the power to do so.

I mentioneed in another post that I wanted to leave it all in the ring. I do. I want to have the ten talents when my Lord comes calling, not the one I buried in fear of losing it.