I actually am in agreement with liberals on some aspects of gun control. There are weapons which have been created for the specific purpose of killing other human beings--military weapons. Those weapons should be kept in the hands of trained professionals and used only for military purposes. No civilian needs a tank, bazooka, or nuclear bomb. Or an AR-15, or any gun that can shoot dozens of rounds of ammunition within a few seconds' time. Those are not hunting weapons, those are not for protection, they are either toys--or instruments of mass murder. I have no need for an AR-15 and I don't see why anybody else does, either, for protection or otherwise. One well-placed bullet from a handgun can stop any nut with an Uzi.
The problem, of course, is, if liberals are allowed to ban AR-15s and other "assault weapons", are they going to be happy and stop there? No, they aren't, because EVERY weapon can ultimately be used as an "assault weapon." Liberals aren't after AR-15s alone; they are after every gun that Americans own; make no mistake about that, and they will never rest until they have them all. That's what makes giving in to liberals on this issue, even to the smallest degree, a very precarious matter. The camel with his nose in the tent thing, the "give an inch, take a mile" argument. They even have a saying for it in China: 得寸进尺 (de cun jin chi), or "reach for a yard after getting an inch." Liberals aren't going to stop at AR-15s and other "assault weapons" because, to them, all guns are assault weapons. They want the government to have all the guns, and they want to control the government. And they want to tell you how to live and they want to punish you, maybe even kill you, if you don't do what they tell you, and they don't want you to have the ability to shoot back if they start shooting at you. There was a very good reason why Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other tyrants were among the greatest gun control advocates in history. And if we think it cannot happen in America, then that is an ignorance of history that could end as the most tragic ever recorded among the annals of mankind.
So, while I do agree that civilians have no business owning a military weapon, I cringe over giving liberals power to control that. The answer, as I've said before, is within people. Some countries have very strong gun control laws, and very few murders. Some countries have very strong gun control laws--and a lot of murders. Why? The answer lies in the civilized behavior of the populace. America built its traditions of civilized morality on the Christian religion. As that tradition has been increasingly eroded by liberalism, uncivilized behavior has become increasingly the norm. Rather than returning the country to a freedom based upon eternal moral law, liberals want to give government more power. Do I have to say again that, given the history of government, the greatest of all mass murderers, I think a return to Christianity would be a far wiser, and more suitable, answer.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
Some Interesting Recent Headlines
"Philly schools installing free condom dispensers over Christmas break..."
More “progressive” brilliance. I’ve got a better idea—how about giving out free Bibles? I bet churches would donate them and the taxpayers wouldn't even have to buy them. Has anyone but me noticed that ever since liberals have booted God and the Bible out of schools and have been exalting condoms as the answer to sexual licentiousness, out-of-wedlock births in the black community has shot up to 70%, and is 40% of total births? Of course, that is exactly what liberals want, because many of those people end up on government welfare—dependent on liberals.
Paid for by decent, hard-working Americans.
If anybody thinks that that removing God from schools and a higher illegitimate rate (among other social problems) is merely a coincidence then…they are the perfect products of the government education system...
"School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards..."
Good enough for the elite, not good enough for the rest of Americans. Liberal hypocrites…Putting guards in the schools is not the ultimate answer, of course, but it is a start, as I (basically) suggested in my article on the subject last week. But ultimately, that’s not the answer. It’s mostly a moral problem, not solved by bullets but by Bibles.
Well, we could shoot all the liberals. That would be a good start, heh heh heh…
"Sam Donaldson Tells Tea Partiers 'It's Not Your Country Anymore--It's Our Country'..."
And it’s why I want secession. Let the decent people of America have a country of their own instead of having to pay for one they didn’t create and don’t believe in.
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."--Thomas Jefferson
**********
Merry Christmas, everybody! For those who believe in and love God, there are still many, many things to be very thankful for, salvation from this world being # 1.
More “progressive” brilliance. I’ve got a better idea—how about giving out free Bibles? I bet churches would donate them and the taxpayers wouldn't even have to buy them. Has anyone but me noticed that ever since liberals have booted God and the Bible out of schools and have been exalting condoms as the answer to sexual licentiousness, out-of-wedlock births in the black community has shot up to 70%, and is 40% of total births? Of course, that is exactly what liberals want, because many of those people end up on government welfare—dependent on liberals.
Paid for by decent, hard-working Americans.
If anybody thinks that that removing God from schools and a higher illegitimate rate (among other social problems) is merely a coincidence then…they are the perfect products of the government education system...
"School Obama's Daughters Attend Has 11 Armed Guards..."
Good enough for the elite, not good enough for the rest of Americans. Liberal hypocrites…Putting guards in the schools is not the ultimate answer, of course, but it is a start, as I (basically) suggested in my article on the subject last week. But ultimately, that’s not the answer. It’s mostly a moral problem, not solved by bullets but by Bibles.
Well, we could shoot all the liberals. That would be a good start, heh heh heh…
"
And it’s why I want secession. Let the decent people of America have a country of their own instead of having to pay for one they didn’t create and don’t believe in.
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."--Thomas Jefferson
**********
Merry Christmas, everybody! For those who believe in and love God, there are still many, many things to be very thankful for, salvation from this world being # 1.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Some Facts About Gun Control
--Some of the cities with the strongest gun control laws, like Washington, DC, have the highest murder rates;
--Gun ownership is higher in rural areas than urban areas. But the murder rate is higher in urban areas;
--Gun ownership is higher among whites than blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks;
--Hand gun ownership doubled in America in the late 20th century, but the murder rate went down;
--Mexico, Russia, and Brazil have stronger gun control laws than America--and higher murder rates;
--Israel and Switzerland have higher rates of gun ownership than America--and lower murder rates. Finland and New Zealand also have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates;
--Switzerland has 3 times the gun ownership of Germany, but has lower murder rates;
--For most of its history, England had very lax gun control laws. A person could buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century. New York had stricter gun control laws--and higher crime rates;
--"In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s—after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions—there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies" (Thomas Sowell, "Invincible Ignorance," Dec. 18, 2012; most of the information in this post comes from Sowell's article). The crime rate in England has gone up as the rate of gun ownership has gone down.
Wicked, undisciplined people are the problem, not guns. Youth, fed daily with violent music, violent TV shows and movies, and violent video games--and given no moral guidance because liberals have booted God and the Bible out of our education system--have no ability to distinguish right and wrong, no reason to control themselves, no cause to respect the rights and lives of others. Our government and dominant liberal philosophy create an atmosphere of disregard for human life by paying for women to kill their unborn children, and then we are shocked when the children who are born kill each other. And, keep in mind, this is "progressive."
We need liberal control, not gun control.
--Gun ownership is higher in rural areas than urban areas. But the murder rate is higher in urban areas;
--Gun ownership is higher among whites than blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks;
--Hand gun ownership doubled in America in the late 20th century, but the murder rate went down;
--Mexico, Russia, and Brazil have stronger gun control laws than America--and higher murder rates;
--Israel and Switzerland have higher rates of gun ownership than America--and lower murder rates. Finland and New Zealand also have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates;
--Switzerland has 3 times the gun ownership of Germany, but has lower murder rates;
--For most of its history, England had very lax gun control laws. A person could buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century. New York had stricter gun control laws--and higher crime rates;
--"In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s—after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions—there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies" (Thomas Sowell, "Invincible Ignorance," Dec. 18, 2012; most of the information in this post comes from Sowell's article). The crime rate in England has gone up as the rate of gun ownership has gone down.
Wicked, undisciplined people are the problem, not guns. Youth, fed daily with violent music, violent TV shows and movies, and violent video games--and given no moral guidance because liberals have booted God and the Bible out of our education system--have no ability to distinguish right and wrong, no reason to control themselves, no cause to respect the rights and lives of others. Our government and dominant liberal philosophy create an atmosphere of disregard for human life by paying for women to kill their unborn children, and then we are shocked when the children who are born kill each other. And, keep in mind, this is "progressive."
We need liberal control, not gun control.
Searching for Answers
The college where I teach here in China has a television in the lobby. It is tuned to CNN. Almost every time I have walked by it this past week, there has been some discussion regarding the Newtown shooting and gun control. Liberals sense that now, after this tragedy, there may be a chance to obtain one of their ultimate goals--the total disarming of Americans and the ultimate tyranny of the national government. Liberals live in a dream world, a fantasy. Their whole philosophy is chimerical, based in unreality, denying every law of morality, economics, and history. And if they think the American people are going to willingly give up their guns....that is one of the biggest fantasies of all. There will be civil war and secession before that happens. And, I say, let it come.
I should clarify. I do NOT want a civil war. But I do want secession. I want as many states as wish to govern themselves, apart from the busybody imposition of Washington, D.C. Who knows better what the people of, say, Texas need--the people in Texas, or the people in Washington, most of whom despise Texas? The federal government has far more power to control the states than the men who founded America intended--and for the very reason I just noted. The people at home know better what they need than politicians far away. The "one-size-fits-all" philosophy of the American national government just does not work effectively when there are 50 states with diverse geographies, economies, sizes, ethnic make-up and a 1,000 other differences. "A single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth," Thomas Jefferson said. And all one must do is look at Washington, right now, to see the wisdom and foresight of that remark. Secession should have been allowed to happen in 1861. Maybe it will finally occur. And if liberals become too insistent on trying to ban "assault weapons" (every weapon can be used as an "assault weapon"), they might find they have less country to govern, ruin, and destroy. Let them keep experimenting on Detroit and Newark (you get what you elect). And Barack Obama seems determined to turn the entirety of America into another Detroit. Blacks have governed Detroit for over a generation, and now a black governs America. Obama has shown no more wisdom or ability to govern than Coleman Young or Kwame Kilpatrick, two of the black leaders who have turned Detroit into a cesspool. Obama scares me to death; no, not him, the people who elected him, including whites!
The answer to Newtown, as I have said before, is not to blame an inanimate object that cannot think, will, or act on its own. The answer has been in our hands for almost 2,000 years now. It's called the Bible. But liberals aren't going to look at that. They will bring the whole nation down with them, destroying countless lives and creating misery for untold millions, before they accept the reality and truth of God's Word.
**********
For a great article about Detroit and its degeneration under liberal, black "leadership", read Walter Williams' current article, "A Hundred Percent of Nothing." Follow this link: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/AHundredPercentOfNothing.htm
I should clarify. I do NOT want a civil war. But I do want secession. I want as many states as wish to govern themselves, apart from the busybody imposition of Washington, D.C. Who knows better what the people of, say, Texas need--the people in Texas, or the people in Washington, most of whom despise Texas? The federal government has far more power to control the states than the men who founded America intended--and for the very reason I just noted. The people at home know better what they need than politicians far away. The "one-size-fits-all" philosophy of the American national government just does not work effectively when there are 50 states with diverse geographies, economies, sizes, ethnic make-up and a 1,000 other differences. "A single, consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth," Thomas Jefferson said. And all one must do is look at Washington, right now, to see the wisdom and foresight of that remark. Secession should have been allowed to happen in 1861. Maybe it will finally occur. And if liberals become too insistent on trying to ban "assault weapons" (every weapon can be used as an "assault weapon"), they might find they have less country to govern, ruin, and destroy. Let them keep experimenting on Detroit and Newark (you get what you elect). And Barack Obama seems determined to turn the entirety of America into another Detroit. Blacks have governed Detroit for over a generation, and now a black governs America. Obama has shown no more wisdom or ability to govern than Coleman Young or Kwame Kilpatrick, two of the black leaders who have turned Detroit into a cesspool. Obama scares me to death; no, not him, the people who elected him, including whites!
The answer to Newtown, as I have said before, is not to blame an inanimate object that cannot think, will, or act on its own. The answer has been in our hands for almost 2,000 years now. It's called the Bible. But liberals aren't going to look at that. They will bring the whole nation down with them, destroying countless lives and creating misery for untold millions, before they accept the reality and truth of God's Word.
**********
For a great article about Detroit and its degeneration under liberal, black "leadership", read Walter Williams' current article, "A Hundred Percent of Nothing." Follow this link: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/12/AHundredPercentOfNothing.htm
The End of the World
It didn’t happen, of course, though, as
I write this, it is still December 21 in Mexico so I suppose it could still
occur. I can’t say I am amazed that so
many people panicked over it; the education level among government-taught
people on earth is (probably deliberately) extremely low, so worldwide ignorance
is pervasive and, ultimately, destructive.
Actually, the Mayans never predicted that the world would end on
December 21, 2012; it was simply the termination of one of their calendar
cycles. It would start all over again
the next day. Somehow that got lost in
all the illiteracy and fear.
Even if the Mayans had predicted the end of the world for December 21, there was no way it was going to happen—unless that is what God had ordained. God has simply not given humans the ability to specifically predict the future; that knowledge belongs to the Almighty alone. It is one of the major evidences for the inspiration of the Bible. In the Old Testament, there are many, many specific predictions about future events, things that only God could have foreseen and revealed to man. The most obvious relate to Jesus (for those interested, I have listed some of the more interesting Biblical prophecies at the end of this article). For those who study history—and the Bible—we can see some vague outlines of future events. This is why I said, four years ago, than an Obama administration, economically and many other ways, would be a failure. There are certain moral and economic laws and principles that God has established for the governance of man on earth (we can find those in Scripture, too). Violate those laws, ignore them, reject them, or try to legislate contrary to them and, more often than not in the short run, and always in the long run, negative consequences will accrue. Wise men of the past have recognized this; however, finding a wise man in Washington, D.C., now is as difficult as Jeremiah finding a righteous man in Jerusalem (Jer. 5:1). As I’ve written before, I’m sad for my country, but I’m not surprised. It isn’t the first time in history that evil has been in the ascendancy. Noah preached 120 years before the flood and didn’t convert anybody.
Even if the Mayans had predicted the end of the world for December 21, there was no way it was going to happen—unless that is what God had ordained. God has simply not given humans the ability to specifically predict the future; that knowledge belongs to the Almighty alone. It is one of the major evidences for the inspiration of the Bible. In the Old Testament, there are many, many specific predictions about future events, things that only God could have foreseen and revealed to man. The most obvious relate to Jesus (for those interested, I have listed some of the more interesting Biblical prophecies at the end of this article). For those who study history—and the Bible—we can see some vague outlines of future events. This is why I said, four years ago, than an Obama administration, economically and many other ways, would be a failure. There are certain moral and economic laws and principles that God has established for the governance of man on earth (we can find those in Scripture, too). Violate those laws, ignore them, reject them, or try to legislate contrary to them and, more often than not in the short run, and always in the long run, negative consequences will accrue. Wise men of the past have recognized this; however, finding a wise man in Washington, D.C., now is as difficult as Jeremiah finding a righteous man in Jerusalem (Jer. 5:1). As I’ve written before, I’m sad for my country, but I’m not surprised. It isn’t the first time in history that evil has been in the ascendancy. Noah preached 120 years before the flood and didn’t convert anybody.
So, the world is still here, the next
cycle of the Mayan calendar begins, 512 years from now there will probably be
panic again, ignorance of the Bible, with all its consequences, will continue, but
the earth will remain until the Lord returns and ends it. That is my
prediction.
**********
Regarding Biblical prophecy, Scripture
foretells, in the Old Testament, the following about a Messiah who would come
and redeem the world: the people from
whom He would be born (the Jews, Gen. 12:1-3); His direct lineage (Isaac, Gen.
21:12; Jacob, Gen. 26:4; Judah, Gen. 49:10; Boaz and Ruth, Ruth 4:18-22; such
is the only explanation for why that book is in the Bible; David, II Sam.
7:12-14). The Bible tells us, 700 years in advance, where He would be born
(Micah 5:2). We know when He would be born (during the Roman
empire, Dan. 2:44), we know the exact
year of His death, Dan. 9:24-27. His
triumphal entry into Jerusalem is specifically mentioned in Zechariah 9:9. Some of the events regarding His death are
alluded to in Psalm 22, and His resurrection is predicted in Psalm 16:10. This is just a smattering of prophecies in
the Old Testament concerning Jesus.
There are also accurate predictions regarding nations (for example, the
destruction of Babylon by Persia is predicted in Isaiah 13:17 well over 100
years before either of those countries became a significant power). Jesus Himself predicted, 40 years in
advance, the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman armies (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke
21). When combined with Christianity’s
perfect moral code, its inerrant understanding of man, and its historical and
scientific accuracy, then we have a book that could only have come from the
mind of God. The claim that the Bible
was written by “priests” is nonsensical (very few of the Biblical writers were
indeed priests; none of the New Testament writers were); priests come in for
some of the harshest criticism in the Bible.
Why would priests write a book that condemned themselves? No, man could not have written that Book had
he wanted to; and he would not have
written it if he could have.Saturday, December 15, 2012
The Solution? More Guns and Fewer Liberals
The tragedy last week in Connecticut is unspeakably, indescribably horrifying and heartrending. Liberals think the answer to such violence is to ban guns; I think the answer is to ban liberalism. Which would be more effective in producing a virtuous, peaceful, respectful society?
Is taking guns out of the hands of decent Americans the solution? (Nobody that I know of objects to criminals not having guns.) I believe Connecticut does have a right-to-carry law, and perhaps more people need to start exercising that right. Let’s suppose that half, or even a third, of the teachers, administrators, and support personnel at Sandy Hook had been armed; how many children would have died? We don’t know the answer to that question, of course, but had the killer known, beforehand, that he was walking into a defended location, that might have been enough to deter him; how many armies will attack a country with far superior fire power? Now, given the mental instability of Adam Lanza, that may have made no difference to him, but, with a well-armed cadre of staff, somebody could have nailed him before he did near as much damage as occurred. More guns on the scene could have limited the tragedy significantly. The police can’t be everywhere and generally only show up after the terror is over. People are going to have to start protecting themselves, especially given what liberalism has done to morality and decency in American society.
Now, I’m certainly not in favor of giving everybody a gun. Only responsible, decent people, who have proven that they possess the right kind of character and decision-making ability should be allowed to carry, and that only after they have received proper training and scrutiny. A gun is dangerous. But a gun in the hands of the right person could have saved a lot of lives in Newtown and Aurora, and everywhere else these sorts of tragedies are happening.
But the ultimate answer, of course, is to reform the hearts and character of humans so that such things become virtually impossible, morally. After an event like Newtown, liberals always like to mockingly shout, "Why did your God allow such a thing to happen?" Liberals boot God out of the schools, try to ban every mention or visible manifestation of Him and His laws in society, but then want to blame Him when people act in ungodly ways. God has told humans exactly how we should act—"Thou shalt not kill" (not "Thou shalt ban anything where one human can harm another"). Why do we fault Him when we ignore what He says?
Noah Webster, great early American, said "Education is useless without the Bible." How many more people, and children, are going to have to die at the hands of maniacs before we return to that truth?
Maybe they did occur, but I don’t recall tragedies like Newtown happening when I was growing up and "Father Knows Best" was a popular television program and theme for guiding culture and society. Liberalism and feminism are hell-bent on destroying the American family; liberals are even trying to change the definition of "family" so that "two mommies" or "two daddies" is equivalent to what God established. And then we wonder why so many youth have screwed-up minds. They have no idea what is right or wrong, because liberals don’t, either! They make it up as they go along! The family is the foundation and strength of any society—nurturing, caring for, and educating the next generation of citizens. Motherhood and fatherhood are the most important responsibilities in any society, but the American family today has been destroyed by a liberalism that wants to exalt the state, and a secular elite who believes it knows better how to raise children than God does, and we end up with dysfunctional young people like Adam Lanza who don’t know the basics of civilized behavior. Giving them pills is not going to solve the problem; giving them God will. Liberals repeat, endlessly, "if he hadn’t had the gun, he couldn’t have done the killing, and all those children would be alive today." That is certainly true. But if Adam Lanza had been a faithful, New Testament Christian, he wouldn’t have done the killing, either. Which is better—take away guns from all people, including responsible citizens, but leave the godless dysfunctional philosophy in place, or creating the kind of moral, virtuous society, built upon the laws of God and Christianity where people respect human life and other people’s rights? I’ll stand with God and Christ any day of the week over liberal politicians. Indeed, the most dangerous person in the world is not someone like Adam Lanza, but is a godless politician with access to weapons and other people’s money. The 20th century provides overwhelming, incontrovertible historical proof of that fact.
As long as liberal philosophy remains in the ascendancy in America, crime and wickedness will wax worse and worse. That means people will need protection—protection against those who cannot discern right and wrong on their own, who have been taught there is no absolute right and wrong, who have been given no moral guidance by their family because that ascendant philosophy wants to destroy the family and has indeed gone a long way in doing so. Protection can be found in many ways, but, to rephrase someone (Mao Zedong) who certainly knew a lot about defending himself, "protection comes out the barrel of a gun." Ultimately, bottom line, when all is said and done, my body is mine, my property, and it’s up to me to protect it. I’m certainly not going to trust Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer to do it. Why would I trust thieves and liars to defend my life?
**********
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."--Theodore Roosevelt. Before we take the rifles out of the hands of decent, God-fearing Americans, let’s take the vote out of the hands of godless, immoral miscreants who elect liberal politicians.
Is taking guns out of the hands of decent Americans the solution? (Nobody that I know of objects to criminals not having guns.) I believe Connecticut does have a right-to-carry law, and perhaps more people need to start exercising that right. Let’s suppose that half, or even a third, of the teachers, administrators, and support personnel at Sandy Hook had been armed; how many children would have died? We don’t know the answer to that question, of course, but had the killer known, beforehand, that he was walking into a defended location, that might have been enough to deter him; how many armies will attack a country with far superior fire power? Now, given the mental instability of Adam Lanza, that may have made no difference to him, but, with a well-armed cadre of staff, somebody could have nailed him before he did near as much damage as occurred. More guns on the scene could have limited the tragedy significantly. The police can’t be everywhere and generally only show up after the terror is over. People are going to have to start protecting themselves, especially given what liberalism has done to morality and decency in American society.
Now, I’m certainly not in favor of giving everybody a gun. Only responsible, decent people, who have proven that they possess the right kind of character and decision-making ability should be allowed to carry, and that only after they have received proper training and scrutiny. A gun is dangerous. But a gun in the hands of the right person could have saved a lot of lives in Newtown and Aurora, and everywhere else these sorts of tragedies are happening.
But the ultimate answer, of course, is to reform the hearts and character of humans so that such things become virtually impossible, morally. After an event like Newtown, liberals always like to mockingly shout, "Why did your God allow such a thing to happen?" Liberals boot God out of the schools, try to ban every mention or visible manifestation of Him and His laws in society, but then want to blame Him when people act in ungodly ways. God has told humans exactly how we should act—"Thou shalt not kill" (not "Thou shalt ban anything where one human can harm another"). Why do we fault Him when we ignore what He says?
Noah Webster, great early American, said "Education is useless without the Bible." How many more people, and children, are going to have to die at the hands of maniacs before we return to that truth?
Maybe they did occur, but I don’t recall tragedies like Newtown happening when I was growing up and "Father Knows Best" was a popular television program and theme for guiding culture and society. Liberalism and feminism are hell-bent on destroying the American family; liberals are even trying to change the definition of "family" so that "two mommies" or "two daddies" is equivalent to what God established. And then we wonder why so many youth have screwed-up minds. They have no idea what is right or wrong, because liberals don’t, either! They make it up as they go along! The family is the foundation and strength of any society—nurturing, caring for, and educating the next generation of citizens. Motherhood and fatherhood are the most important responsibilities in any society, but the American family today has been destroyed by a liberalism that wants to exalt the state, and a secular elite who believes it knows better how to raise children than God does, and we end up with dysfunctional young people like Adam Lanza who don’t know the basics of civilized behavior. Giving them pills is not going to solve the problem; giving them God will. Liberals repeat, endlessly, "if he hadn’t had the gun, he couldn’t have done the killing, and all those children would be alive today." That is certainly true. But if Adam Lanza had been a faithful, New Testament Christian, he wouldn’t have done the killing, either. Which is better—take away guns from all people, including responsible citizens, but leave the godless dysfunctional philosophy in place, or creating the kind of moral, virtuous society, built upon the laws of God and Christianity where people respect human life and other people’s rights? I’ll stand with God and Christ any day of the week over liberal politicians. Indeed, the most dangerous person in the world is not someone like Adam Lanza, but is a godless politician with access to weapons and other people’s money. The 20th century provides overwhelming, incontrovertible historical proof of that fact.
As long as liberal philosophy remains in the ascendancy in America, crime and wickedness will wax worse and worse. That means people will need protection—protection against those who cannot discern right and wrong on their own, who have been taught there is no absolute right and wrong, who have been given no moral guidance by their family because that ascendant philosophy wants to destroy the family and has indeed gone a long way in doing so. Protection can be found in many ways, but, to rephrase someone (Mao Zedong) who certainly knew a lot about defending himself, "protection comes out the barrel of a gun." Ultimately, bottom line, when all is said and done, my body is mine, my property, and it’s up to me to protect it. I’m certainly not going to trust Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer to do it. Why would I trust thieves and liars to defend my life?
**********
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."--Theodore Roosevelt. Before we take the rifles out of the hands of decent, God-fearing Americans, let’s take the vote out of the hands of godless, immoral miscreants who elect liberal politicians.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Hurry, Washington Post, Before The Man You Worship Raises Your Taxes
From the Associated Press:
"The Washington Post Co. will pay its 2013 dividends before the end of this year to try to spare investors from anticipated tax increases."
Just for the record: there are no tax cuts planned. Obama has no intention of cutting anybody's taxes. Of course, almost half the people in America don't pay any income tax, anyway, so they do not care. What will happen, if the country goes over the "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year, is that tax rates will revert to what they were before they were lowered in 2001 and 2003 in the Bush years. If Obama and the Republicans make a deal (i.e., if the Republicans cave and give Obama what he wants), then part of that deal might be that tax rates for most people will stay the same! That is not a tax "cut", folks, but that is how Obama and the media are selling it. What the media is trying to portray is that Obama is trying to cut taxes for everybody, except the top 2% (now it's 2%, not 1%), and the Republicans are trying to protect "the rich" and not cut their taxes. And so--according to Obama and his media lapdogs--the Republicans are standing in the way of a tax cut for 98% of Americans by holding out for tax cuts for the richest 2%！ That isn't the truth, but it's part of the political game.
If the Republicans will give Obama exactly what he wants, then he'll avoid going over the "cliff" at the end of the month. Otherwise, he would be happy for the government to go over the "fiscal cliff" and let everybody's tax rates rise. He can blame Republicans for it, because they were holding out against the top 2% paying their "fair share". Then, next year, Obama can push for the 98% having their tax rate lowered to where it is now--and call it a tax cut! Obama the Savior! I really hate to call people "stupid," but...
Lots of folks, like those in the Washington Post, are trying to protect their money before the end of the year because they know that, next year, Obama is going to take as much of it as he can get.
Democracy. I love it.
"The Washington Post Co. will pay its 2013 dividends before the end of this year to try to spare investors from anticipated tax increases."
Just for the record: there are no tax cuts planned. Obama has no intention of cutting anybody's taxes. Of course, almost half the people in America don't pay any income tax, anyway, so they do not care. What will happen, if the country goes over the "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year, is that tax rates will revert to what they were before they were lowered in 2001 and 2003 in the Bush years. If Obama and the Republicans make a deal (i.e., if the Republicans cave and give Obama what he wants), then part of that deal might be that tax rates for most people will stay the same! That is not a tax "cut", folks, but that is how Obama and the media are selling it. What the media is trying to portray is that Obama is trying to cut taxes for everybody, except the top 2% (now it's 2%, not 1%), and the Republicans are trying to protect "the rich" and not cut their taxes. And so--according to Obama and his media lapdogs--the Republicans are standing in the way of a tax cut for 98% of Americans by holding out for tax cuts for the richest 2%！ That isn't the truth, but it's part of the political game.
If the Republicans will give Obama exactly what he wants, then he'll avoid going over the "cliff" at the end of the month. Otherwise, he would be happy for the government to go over the "fiscal cliff" and let everybody's tax rates rise. He can blame Republicans for it, because they were holding out against the top 2% paying their "fair share". Then, next year, Obama can push for the 98% having their tax rate lowered to where it is now--and call it a tax cut! Obama the Savior! I really hate to call people "stupid," but...
Lots of folks, like those in the Washington Post, are trying to protect their money before the end of the year because they know that, next year, Obama is going to take as much of it as he can get.
Democracy. I love it.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
I Love Democracy
Actually,
I don’t. I can’t stand it. If a country gives mediocrity, stupidity, and
wickedness the vote, then a country will end up with mediocrity, stupidity, and
wickedness in power. One only needs to
look at places like Washington, D.C., Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and the
whole state of California to see the truth in that. The American Founding Fathers, contrary to
almost universal belief, did not establish a democracy in America; most of them
despised it. They established an
aristocracy of merit, far and away the best form of government possible—let
people who have proven their virtue
and ability be given the vote and political power. It didn’t work, but then, they tried,
destroyed by Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and…democracy.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”—Benjamin Franklin The “tyranny of the majority” is a familiar phrase to America’s founders. In a democracy, since the majority rules, what is to prevent 51% of the people from passing laws that deny the other 49% their rights? Or, what is to prevent the majority from voting money out of the hands who have earned it and giving it to themselves? This is freedom? This is wisdom? This is good government?
My
abhorrence to democracy is not unknown to the regular readers of my
writings. In this article, I have a few
quotes from some folks in history about democracy that I would like to share. Fascinating thoughts from perceptive minds…
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”—Benjamin Franklin The “tyranny of the majority” is a familiar phrase to America’s founders. In a democracy, since the majority rules, what is to prevent 51% of the people from passing laws that deny the other 49% their rights? Or, what is to prevent the majority from voting money out of the hands who have earned it and giving it to themselves? This is freedom? This is wisdom? This is good government?
Incidentally,
Bob Costas, you and your liberal buddies are not getting our guns. It’s
the only protection we have from you and…democracy. The well-armed lamb….
I
love this one: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with
the average voter.”—Winston Churchill
Can you say, “Obamaphone”? How, how, HOW can a country give the vote to
a person like that and expect progress, strength, virtue, and success? It can’t happen. The right to vote is not a natural right, because the right to vote gives a person the
right to rule somebody else, and nobody is born with that right. It has to be earned, and it has to be earned
through industry, wisdom, morality, frugality, and success. Those are the virtues a country should want
ruling it, not covetousness, laziness, profligacy, licentiousness, and failure.
“It is a besetting vice of democracies to
substitute public opinion for law. This
is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.”—James Fenimore
Cooper This is brilliant. The most critical thing, the most crucial
element, of any government is to
acknowledge there is a God Who has established eternal moral laws for the
direction of mankind on earth. When a
country sets that aside, and allows majority opinion to define morality and
law, then every kind of vice known to man will plague a people--vices such as
abortion, homosexual “marriage”, theft in the name of “sharing the wealth,” and
a thousand other such practices that are destroying the fiber and foundation of
the United States. People need
guidance. They need God. “It is not in man who walks to direct his own
steps,” Jeremiah said (10:23). Democracies
invariably set aside the laws of God for the opinions of man; they don’t have to do that, but they do. History conclusively shows that the majority
will ultimately nearly always be wrong, and that is why they cannot be trusted
with political power. But then, for that
matter, nobody should be entrusted
with too much political power. It is too
intoxicating an evil for most humans to control.
“Democracy is the road to socialism.”—Karl
Marx I need a little time to develop
this theme—which is absolutely the truth—but for now, I will only say that,
since equality (not freedom) is the guiding principle of both democracy and
socialism, then it is never a surprise when democracies end up tending towards
socialism. All Marxists certainly know
this; that is why the communist dictatorships usually call(ed) themselves “The
People’s Republic” and say they are establishing true democracy. Many, many of my students, who have, of
course, been trained in the Chinese education (propaganda) system, actually
believe that their country is a democracy.
Democracy,
in theory, sounds so good with its talk of freedom, equality, and rights for
the people. But theory and the practice have
been widely separate. The current
debased, debauched, licentious condition of the United States is almost totally
the fault of democracy. You give the
masses the vote, and you take God away from them, and the conclusion is
inevitable. It has been written in
history many times before.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
What Is a "Fair Share"?
The Democrats and mainstream media have demagogued the idea that the "rich" in America need to pay their "fair share" of taxes. They have never defined or quantified what that "fair share" is (and they never will because they do not know). According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2009 (the latest figures available), the top 1 percent paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income (this takes into account all forms of income).
So, what is their "fair share"?
It's really an easy question to answer. The rich's "fair share" is enough to keep buying Democrats votes and elections, and transfer enough wealth to keep a substantial number of people--hopefully a majority--in dependency. It is not in government's interest for people to become self-reliant and responsible; for, if that happens, government is no longer needed.
Freedom and government are enemies. Our Founding Fathers knew it well; so does the modern Democratic Party.
So, what is their "fair share"?
It's really an easy question to answer. The rich's "fair share" is enough to keep buying Democrats votes and elections, and transfer enough wealth to keep a substantial number of people--hopefully a majority--in dependency. It is not in government's interest for people to become self-reliant and responsible; for, if that happens, government is no longer needed.
Freedom and government are enemies. Our Founding Fathers knew it well; so does the modern Democratic Party.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
One Reason Why Twinkie Died....
From Thomas Sowell's recent article, "Killing the Goose":
"The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa."
Unions...
"The work rules imposed in union contracts required the company that makes Twinkies, which also makes Wonder Bread, to deliver these two products to stores in separate trucks. Moreover, truck drivers were not allowed to load either of these products into their trucks. And the people who did load Twinkies into trucks were not allowed to load Wonder Bread, and vice versa."
Unions...
Sunday, November 18, 2012
This Is What America Has Become
Here is a recent statement from a New Orleans Times-Picayune editorial aimed at Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, a perfect illustration of what the United States has become: "With every decision Jindal makes, the message becomes clearer to hundreds of thousands of Louisiana residents who are uninsured: The state has no interest in helping you." There is nothing here about self-reliance, about individual responsibility, about the fact that people should take care of themselves. No, the whole theme of the "intelligentsia" in America today is: the government will--should--take care of you and any politician who thinks otherwise is unfeeling, uncaring, and uncompassionate. You have the right to live off somebody else's hard work and money.
And it appears, given the recent election, that the majority of Americans now believe that. That it is the government's responsibility to provide "entitlements" to Americans, not Americans' responsiblity to go out and earn them. With Karl Marx--and this is pure Marxism--"progressive intellectuals" believe that the rich have become rich by robbing the poor, and that it is the obligation of the government to right that wrong--to take away what the rich have and redistribute it back to the poor, who had it stolen from them in the first place. Barack Obama, of course, accepts that totally--or at least, that is the direction of his policies. America, not learning from the failures of 20th century Marxist states, has itself become a Marxist country. Massive numbers of people in the United States soak that up. Mitt Romney was exactly right: Barack Obama bought the election with promises of free gifts to enough people. May I refer the reader again to Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler's quote of over 200 years ago? (Click on the following link: "Who Is Going To Win?") This is no surprise to anyone who knows history.
No, folks, the American government is not 16+trillion dollars in debt because "the rich" don't pay enough taxes. America is in debt because too many people have lost the virtues of hard work and individual responsibility, too many Americans want something for nothing and believe they are entitled to it, too many Americans want the government to provide them near cradle-to-grave benefits, but they aren't willing to pay for it themselves through their own higher taxes. They want somebody else to pay for it. And they have been demogogued that such is their "right." That is the religious dogma of the left, and it controls the country. But even if Obama took every dime from every person making over a million dollars in America, he still wouldn't have enough to pay for what his sycophants crave; and, of course, he would utterly destroy the American economy, and nobody would have anything. That may be what he wants. That--i.e., nothing--is what everybody in the Soviet Union and Maoist China had--everybody but the party nomenkletura, i.e., Stalin, Mao, and their cronies.
The tide cannot be held back much longer. When us "old white guys" finally die off...when the men, like my father, who built America with the sweat of their brow, conquered a continent and brought it untold spiritual and material blessings (even for those they conquered!), gave their lives in wars for their countrymen, who sacrificed for their families, communities, and country, men who had a strength of character, virtue, duty, and responsibility that Obama's Americans have absolutely no clue about....and when the women, like my mother, who stood behind those men, raising strong families, teaching their children moral values, civilizing the next generation of Americans like God intended mothers to do, women who knew they were women and not men, and were proud to be so and to do their duty to their husbands, children, churches, and society...when those people finally die off, America will be a patsy for any rogue state with a water pistol. No, our forefathers were not perfect, of course; perfection, as I've said many times before, lies on the other side of the grave, not this one. America's Founding Fathers knew that, too, but today's leftist secularists don't. Regardless of their faults, the virtues of our fathers far outweighed their vices, and that's why America succeeded. Today, it is all too obvious, that, for the mass of Americans, the scale has tipped in the other direction--vice trumps virtue, and so the editor of the New Orleans Times-Picayune can write what would have been absolutely unthinkable in the earlier, great America--literally, unthinkable. Nobody would have thought of it.
Until Marx. Until Franklin Roosevelt. Until Lyndon Johnson. Until Barack Obama.
And it appears, given the recent election, that the majority of Americans now believe that. That it is the government's responsibility to provide "entitlements" to Americans, not Americans' responsiblity to go out and earn them. With Karl Marx--and this is pure Marxism--"progressive intellectuals" believe that the rich have become rich by robbing the poor, and that it is the obligation of the government to right that wrong--to take away what the rich have and redistribute it back to the poor, who had it stolen from them in the first place. Barack Obama, of course, accepts that totally--or at least, that is the direction of his policies. America, not learning from the failures of 20th century Marxist states, has itself become a Marxist country. Massive numbers of people in the United States soak that up. Mitt Romney was exactly right: Barack Obama bought the election with promises of free gifts to enough people. May I refer the reader again to Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler's quote of over 200 years ago? (Click on the following link: "Who Is Going To Win?") This is no surprise to anyone who knows history.
No, folks, the American government is not 16+trillion dollars in debt because "the rich" don't pay enough taxes. America is in debt because too many people have lost the virtues of hard work and individual responsibility, too many Americans want something for nothing and believe they are entitled to it, too many Americans want the government to provide them near cradle-to-grave benefits, but they aren't willing to pay for it themselves through their own higher taxes. They want somebody else to pay for it. And they have been demogogued that such is their "right." That is the religious dogma of the left, and it controls the country. But even if Obama took every dime from every person making over a million dollars in America, he still wouldn't have enough to pay for what his sycophants crave; and, of course, he would utterly destroy the American economy, and nobody would have anything. That may be what he wants. That--i.e., nothing--is what everybody in the Soviet Union and Maoist China had--everybody but the party nomenkletura, i.e., Stalin, Mao, and their cronies.
The tide cannot be held back much longer. When us "old white guys" finally die off...when the men, like my father, who built America with the sweat of their brow, conquered a continent and brought it untold spiritual and material blessings (even for those they conquered!), gave their lives in wars for their countrymen, who sacrificed for their families, communities, and country, men who had a strength of character, virtue, duty, and responsibility that Obama's Americans have absolutely no clue about....and when the women, like my mother, who stood behind those men, raising strong families, teaching their children moral values, civilizing the next generation of Americans like God intended mothers to do, women who knew they were women and not men, and were proud to be so and to do their duty to their husbands, children, churches, and society...when those people finally die off, America will be a patsy for any rogue state with a water pistol. No, our forefathers were not perfect, of course; perfection, as I've said many times before, lies on the other side of the grave, not this one. America's Founding Fathers knew that, too, but today's leftist secularists don't. Regardless of their faults, the virtues of our fathers far outweighed their vices, and that's why America succeeded. Today, it is all too obvious, that, for the mass of Americans, the scale has tipped in the other direction--vice trumps virtue, and so the editor of the New Orleans Times-Picayune can write what would have been absolutely unthinkable in the earlier, great America--literally, unthinkable. Nobody would have thought of it.
Until Marx. Until Franklin Roosevelt. Until Lyndon Johnson. Until Barack Obama.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Yes, Let's Have More "Progressivism" and Less Christianity
The sordid affair of General David Petraeus is simply symptomatic of a greater disease in America, i.e., the increasing cultural rot euphemistically known as "progressivism." "Progressive" "freedom’ is nothing more than sexual licentiousness; it is designed, largely, to protect two things—homosexuality and abortion. We should not be surprised, with such a philosophy so rampant in our society, that it filters into the highest, most powerful corridors of the country.
James Madison said, "I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom." What a laugh, at least as it has come to pass in Barack Obama's America. Madison’s statement presupposes what John Adams so perceptively noted: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." Of course, except in structural matters (elections, branches of government, etc.), the United States government today pays absolutely no attention to the Constitution—or the principles that underlay it. And the latter is the real key.
Incidentally, none of these recent disasters—Petraeus or Benghazi—will touch Barack Obama. Did Obama know about the Petraeus affair before the election? Almost certainly he did, but ordered his people to sit on it until after the election. Anybody who thinks it is a mere coincidence that this broke just a few days after the election is naïve to the highest degree. Nor will we ever know the entire truth about the Benghazi affair. If what has dribbled out is even close to the truth, then Obama is supremely culpable in the deaths of four Americans. If nothing else, his apologizing foreign policy is. But, again, we’ll probably never know the truth, for sure. Evil is in the ascendancy right now in America, folks. For the foreseeable future, evil is going to win. Just accept that as the way things are, until God finally gets sick of it and does something. The Democrats, most major media outlets, and academia are going to protect Obama, come what may. They are not going to let anything happen to him. So anybody who believes that any of this stink will rub off on the President is…naïve to the highest degree.
Yes, what America needs is more "progressivism" and less Christianity (and pardon my sarcasm). We certainly do not want a country where there is more love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. What we all want is a nation full of adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like….Any virtue that "progressivism" does promote has been taught by the Bible for 1,000s of years and is rooted in the eternal nature of God. So why do we need "progressivism" when Christianity gives us the good without the rot?
**********
The secession movement is actually kind of funny. The latest information I’ve been able to obtain is that petitions for secession have been filed in all 50 states and that 7 of them have garnered sufficient signatures to warrant the White House analyzing and responding to them. Of course, nothing will come of this right now. But it is a start. Perhaps some day, in the not-too-distant future, the country will do the right thing—something that should have happened in the 1860s—and there will be a (hopefully) peaceful parting of the ways. The United States is more divided now than it was in 1860; it’s worse now, because it is an ideological, in effect, a religious, split, not an economic one, as in 1860. The "left" and the "right", in America, will never agree, and the feelings are bitter. Liberals hate George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Republicans, Jesus and anything to do with Christianity, and liberal arrogance, elitism, and moral degeneracy tries the patience and tolerance of even the most devoted child of God. So, let the liberals have everything north of the Mason-Dixon line, plus the west coast, and let conservatives have the South and West. Spend some of that "stimulus" money to subsidize people moving to whatever part of the country they want to live in. I'm even willing to contribute to that.
And then build a wall on the Ohio River to keep the liberals from moving south again when they realize, as they will in a very short time, that their country looks like Detroit, Chicago, and California--three places where liberalism, not God, Christ, and conservatism, has ruled for a long time.
**********
A prediction on the "fiscal cliff" matter: there will be a deal reached before the end of the year, and the Republicans will cave. You don’t need to be a prophet or an historian to see that. The Republicans will give Obama the higher taxes on the rich that he wants (or most of them). In return, Obama will "promise" some government spending cuts, none of which will ever happen, except those to the military, which the Democrats want to gut. You will be able to tell how bad the agreement is by how loudly and long the "mainstream" media praises it. When they trumpet how "reasonable" Republicans have been in the deal, that is nothing more than a code word for Republicans giving in. "Compromise", to the Democrats, means the Republicans surrendering. And that is what will happen. You read it here first.
**********
Plato said, ""Ignorance is the root and the stem of every evil." Somebody wiser than Plato (God) proclaimed, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6), and "my people have gone into bondage because they have no knowledge" (Isaiah 5:13). Read the Alexander Tytler quote again in my November 5 post "Who's Going to Win?" And also remember the Theodore Roosevelt statement: "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." A PhD from Harvard is useless for the well-being of mankind if the owner of it doesn’t know and understand moral, eternal law. The Obama administration and the Democratic Party are full of such people. And it is why America is in the sad, tragic state that it is in.
Keep in mind, folks--never forget this: government wants evil, shiftless, lazy, debauched people in a society because that gives government something to do. Virtuous, hard-working, self-reliant, self-disciplined people don't need government, they take care of themselves, and that is exactly why liberalism and the Democratic Party encourages and promotes every kind of deviant, disorderly behavior they can. Without evil, the Democratic Party ceases to exist. The closer people get to Christianity, the less government needed. Ergo, liberalism and Democrats hate Christianity with a passion exceeded only by their narcissism.
That, and Christianity condemns their sexual licentiousness.
James Madison said, "I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom." What a laugh, at least as it has come to pass in Barack Obama's America. Madison’s statement presupposes what John Adams so perceptively noted: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." Of course, except in structural matters (elections, branches of government, etc.), the United States government today pays absolutely no attention to the Constitution—or the principles that underlay it. And the latter is the real key.
Incidentally, none of these recent disasters—Petraeus or Benghazi—will touch Barack Obama. Did Obama know about the Petraeus affair before the election? Almost certainly he did, but ordered his people to sit on it until after the election. Anybody who thinks it is a mere coincidence that this broke just a few days after the election is naïve to the highest degree. Nor will we ever know the entire truth about the Benghazi affair. If what has dribbled out is even close to the truth, then Obama is supremely culpable in the deaths of four Americans. If nothing else, his apologizing foreign policy is. But, again, we’ll probably never know the truth, for sure. Evil is in the ascendancy right now in America, folks. For the foreseeable future, evil is going to win. Just accept that as the way things are, until God finally gets sick of it and does something. The Democrats, most major media outlets, and academia are going to protect Obama, come what may. They are not going to let anything happen to him. So anybody who believes that any of this stink will rub off on the President is…naïve to the highest degree.
Yes, what America needs is more "progressivism" and less Christianity (and pardon my sarcasm). We certainly do not want a country where there is more love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. What we all want is a nation full of adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like….Any virtue that "progressivism" does promote has been taught by the Bible for 1,000s of years and is rooted in the eternal nature of God. So why do we need "progressivism" when Christianity gives us the good without the rot?
**********
The secession movement is actually kind of funny. The latest information I’ve been able to obtain is that petitions for secession have been filed in all 50 states and that 7 of them have garnered sufficient signatures to warrant the White House analyzing and responding to them. Of course, nothing will come of this right now. But it is a start. Perhaps some day, in the not-too-distant future, the country will do the right thing—something that should have happened in the 1860s—and there will be a (hopefully) peaceful parting of the ways. The United States is more divided now than it was in 1860; it’s worse now, because it is an ideological, in effect, a religious, split, not an economic one, as in 1860. The "left" and the "right", in America, will never agree, and the feelings are bitter. Liberals hate George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Republicans, Jesus and anything to do with Christianity, and liberal arrogance, elitism, and moral degeneracy tries the patience and tolerance of even the most devoted child of God. So, let the liberals have everything north of the Mason-Dixon line, plus the west coast, and let conservatives have the South and West. Spend some of that "stimulus" money to subsidize people moving to whatever part of the country they want to live in. I'm even willing to contribute to that.
And then build a wall on the Ohio River to keep the liberals from moving south again when they realize, as they will in a very short time, that their country looks like Detroit, Chicago, and California--three places where liberalism, not God, Christ, and conservatism, has ruled for a long time.
**********
A prediction on the "fiscal cliff" matter: there will be a deal reached before the end of the year, and the Republicans will cave. You don’t need to be a prophet or an historian to see that. The Republicans will give Obama the higher taxes on the rich that he wants (or most of them). In return, Obama will "promise" some government spending cuts, none of which will ever happen, except those to the military, which the Democrats want to gut. You will be able to tell how bad the agreement is by how loudly and long the "mainstream" media praises it. When they trumpet how "reasonable" Republicans have been in the deal, that is nothing more than a code word for Republicans giving in. "Compromise", to the Democrats, means the Republicans surrendering. And that is what will happen. You read it here first.
**********
Plato said, ""Ignorance is the root and the stem of every evil." Somebody wiser than Plato (God) proclaimed, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6), and "my people have gone into bondage because they have no knowledge" (Isaiah 5:13). Read the Alexander Tytler quote again in my November 5 post "Who's Going to Win?" And also remember the Theodore Roosevelt statement: "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." A PhD from Harvard is useless for the well-being of mankind if the owner of it doesn’t know and understand moral, eternal law. The Obama administration and the Democratic Party are full of such people. And it is why America is in the sad, tragic state that it is in.
Keep in mind, folks--never forget this: government wants evil, shiftless, lazy, debauched people in a society because that gives government something to do. Virtuous, hard-working, self-reliant, self-disciplined people don't need government, they take care of themselves, and that is exactly why liberalism and the Democratic Party encourages and promotes every kind of deviant, disorderly behavior they can. Without evil, the Democratic Party ceases to exist. The closer people get to Christianity, the less government needed. Ergo, liberalism and Democrats hate Christianity with a passion exceeded only by their narcissism.
That, and Christianity condemns their sexual licentiousness.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
What Should the Republicans Do?
In the Old West, when your horse stepped in a gopher hole and broke his leg, the merciful thing to do was to put your gun to his head and pull the trigger. The poor beast was in agony and wasn't going to live. Rather than prolong its suffering, you surrendered to the inevitable and put him out of his misery. Nobody disagreed with that approach, as sad and difficult as it must have been.
The United States is country that has stepped in a gopher hole and severely broken its leg. It isn't going to live, at least not in the form that it was founded, and it has no chance of rising to greatness again, given its current leadership and the direction they are wanting to take the nation. The best thing that could happen to America is for somebody to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. Rather than prolonging the agony of death, get it over with, and--here our analogy with the horse breaks down a bit--start the rebuilding process again as soon as possible.
The Republican Party should recognize this (but, of course, there is absolutely no way that it will). What the Republicans should do is simply get out of Obama's way, give him everything he wants, because the sooner the Democratic Party destroys the country, reducing it to moral, spiritual, and economic rubble, the sooner the nation can start to heal and rebuild. If the Republicans fight, all they will do is prolong the agony of the inevitable. Let Obama finish the job he and the Democrats intend to do, and then, hopefully, the Democratic Party will, in its current degenerate manifestation, disappear from the face of the earth and true progress can be made. Plus, under such a scenario, the Republicans could not be accused of "obstructionism." It would all be at the feet of the Democrats and no guilt could accrue to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, naturally, aren't going to follow this scenario. They are going to fight--and lose most of the battles, because they are fighting against the tide of history. The majority of Americans, as evidenced by the recent election, simply cannot see the cancer that has infested the country, and it has now spread too far, too wide, and too deep for any hope of recovery. There is nothing the doctors can do; this patient is going to die. The sooner, the better. But because we are talking about a nation and not an individual, a remnant can survive, and from a remnant, the Lord can construct a mighty kingdom. Get out of the way, Republicans. Let the unavoidable happen as quickly as possible. And then let America turn back to God and the Bible and restore true greatness and progress.
The United States is country that has stepped in a gopher hole and severely broken its leg. It isn't going to live, at least not in the form that it was founded, and it has no chance of rising to greatness again, given its current leadership and the direction they are wanting to take the nation. The best thing that could happen to America is for somebody to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. Rather than prolonging the agony of death, get it over with, and--here our analogy with the horse breaks down a bit--start the rebuilding process again as soon as possible.
The Republican Party should recognize this (but, of course, there is absolutely no way that it will). What the Republicans should do is simply get out of Obama's way, give him everything he wants, because the sooner the Democratic Party destroys the country, reducing it to moral, spiritual, and economic rubble, the sooner the nation can start to heal and rebuild. If the Republicans fight, all they will do is prolong the agony of the inevitable. Let Obama finish the job he and the Democrats intend to do, and then, hopefully, the Democratic Party will, in its current degenerate manifestation, disappear from the face of the earth and true progress can be made. Plus, under such a scenario, the Republicans could not be accused of "obstructionism." It would all be at the feet of the Democrats and no guilt could accrue to the Republican Party.
The Republicans, naturally, aren't going to follow this scenario. They are going to fight--and lose most of the battles, because they are fighting against the tide of history. The majority of Americans, as evidenced by the recent election, simply cannot see the cancer that has infested the country, and it has now spread too far, too wide, and too deep for any hope of recovery. There is nothing the doctors can do; this patient is going to die. The sooner, the better. But because we are talking about a nation and not an individual, a remnant can survive, and from a remnant, the Lord can construct a mighty kingdom. Get out of the way, Republicans. Let the unavoidable happen as quickly as possible. And then let America turn back to God and the Bible and restore true greatness and progress.
Go, Texas!
Over 25,000 people in the state of Texas have signed a petition and sent it to the White House asking for permission to peacefully secede from the United States (other states are also raising petitions for the same purpose). I say, Go, Texas! If the people of that state want to secede from America, more power to them. To deny their right to do so is to deny the very principles upon which the United States was founded, for what did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et al do except secede from England?
For those who say Texas does not have a right to secede, perhaps you can explain to us why Texas had a right to secede from Mexico in 1836 but cannot do so from America. Or perhaps Texas didn’t have a right to secede from Mexico and thus, rightfully, should belong to that country. A country, of course, which, in 1821, seceded from Spain…
The wisdom of secession might be debated, but the right is denied only by tyrants. Government, to be legitimate, must be by "the consent of the governed", and when a people no longer consent to that government, it is their right to be governed by those whom they desire. Otherwise, there is government by tyranny and slavery. Of course, Texas will not be allowed to secede; that war was fought, and lost, in the 1860s (Texas won its secession war in 1836 as did America in the 1770s). And that is the greatest tragedy in American history—the defeat of the South in their war for independence—for it destroyed the country as established by its founders and paved the way for the tyrannical, out-of-control monster that now exists in Washington, D.C.
Those who argue for secession are not traitors, not if the government has broken the contract with its people and gone beyond its constitutionally authorized limitations. Again, only a tyrant or an ignoramus would argue that the federal government of the United States remains within the boundaries of the powers given to it in the Constitution. It is the government, not the people, who has broken the contract. That frees the people to form a contract with another government, if they so desire.
As I said, secession is not going to happen (a majority of Texans might not even want it; they could lose their free Obamaphone, Obamacare, and food stamps!), but there is little doubt that, if Texas did secede, some other states would follow. And probably a lot of Yankees would be happy to see Texas (and other states) go. Indeed, New York might even join Texas; after all, when the Southern states seceded in 1861, the mayor of New York City wanted to secede with them because his city had become the largest, richest port in the country shipping slave-grown Southern cotton to the rest of the world. The North finally decided that, financially, it wouldn't be a good idea to let the South go ("Where then would we get our revenue?" Abraham Lincoln asked, since the southern states were paying over 80% of federal taxes with about 30% of the population). Money was the reason for the Civil War, not slavery. And money will be the reason no state will secede today.
Secession is only a last option—but it must be an option for a people, or there is no way to prevent a government from becoming tyrannical and destroying the rights of a free citizenry. Voting won't do it because, as we saw in this latest election, government politicians can buy enough votes to win an election and destroy foundation principles. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty (emphasis added), to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security." That is from America’s Declaration of Independence, in case the reader doesn’t recognize it. I suspect about 99% of Americans today would not recognize it.
But then, America’s founders wouldn’t recognize their government today, either.
Go, Texas!
Thursday, November 8, 2012
So Now We Know
This
election wasn’t even close.
Furthermore, the Republican Party will have to concoct a strategy to out-give the Democratic Party; just to be brutally honest, creating dependency and promoting moral debauchery is what the Democrats are all about. There is nothing spiritually positive about their digressive message. It is all about taking from the hard-working, productive sectors of the society (which discourages such behavior, of course), distributing it to those who have no shame in accepting what they have not earned (encouraging that kind of behavior), and egging on as much lewd moral behavior as possible, which also creates reliance upon government to rescue such people from the consequences of their own conduct. Such behavior has been in the ascendancy for a few decades now, and since it is now clearly in the majority, how can the Republicans ever hope to win a national election again without appealing to it and further encouraging it? Oh, they can win in local areas where there still exist pockets of freedom and decency. But national elections will be increasingly problematic. It will be interesting to see what strategy the Republicans adopt. How can they appeal to Hispanics and blacks? Those two groups, huge minorities and growing, trust in dependency; it’s all they have ever known. As a whole, neither of those ethnic groups believes in hard work and individual initiative and personal responsibility. I don’t mean to be slandering those people and it has nothing to do with race; at the risk of being nauseatingly redundant, it’s history! The culture Hispanics came out of, from colonial Spain to the Latin American countries, is a culture of one-man rule and dependency. As a whole, they have not assimilated into America, indeed, they demand America change to accommodate them. The Republican Party offers them everything that, historically, they don’t understand and, yes, fled from, but not knowing—or being taught—anything else, they will surely revert to the patterns they are accustomed to—government submission and dependence.
Those
who believe in the founding principles America—God, hard work, individual
initiative, virtue, responsible freedom--have become the minority in the
country. A clear, distinct minority. And those who believe in government
dependency, group identification, and “every man does that which is right in
his own eyes” have become a decided majority.
It happens, every time, in the history of peoples. It was inevitable in America, and it has
occurred. America has reached the point
of no return.
It
is possible, I suppose, for the Republicans to elect another President in the
future. But at the moment, it is hard to
see how. It appears the Republicans would
have to nominate a pop star, someone deeply rooted in the cultural rot that now
infests the country, someone more at home on David Letterman’s show and “The
View” than a serious, respectful, dignified man who will talk to the American
people as adults, not adolescents. It
will be difficult for the Republicans to find a candidate like that.
Furthermore, the Republican Party will have to concoct a strategy to out-give the Democratic Party; just to be brutally honest, creating dependency and promoting moral debauchery is what the Democrats are all about. There is nothing spiritually positive about their digressive message. It is all about taking from the hard-working, productive sectors of the society (which discourages such behavior, of course), distributing it to those who have no shame in accepting what they have not earned (encouraging that kind of behavior), and egging on as much lewd moral behavior as possible, which also creates reliance upon government to rescue such people from the consequences of their own conduct. Such behavior has been in the ascendancy for a few decades now, and since it is now clearly in the majority, how can the Republicans ever hope to win a national election again without appealing to it and further encouraging it? Oh, they can win in local areas where there still exist pockets of freedom and decency. But national elections will be increasingly problematic. It will be interesting to see what strategy the Republicans adopt. How can they appeal to Hispanics and blacks? Those two groups, huge minorities and growing, trust in dependency; it’s all they have ever known. As a whole, neither of those ethnic groups believes in hard work and individual initiative and personal responsibility. I don’t mean to be slandering those people and it has nothing to do with race; at the risk of being nauseatingly redundant, it’s history! The culture Hispanics came out of, from colonial Spain to the Latin American countries, is a culture of one-man rule and dependency. As a whole, they have not assimilated into America, indeed, they demand America change to accommodate them. The Republican Party offers them everything that, historically, they don’t understand and, yes, fled from, but not knowing—or being taught—anything else, they will surely revert to the patterns they are accustomed to—government submission and dependence.
Blacks
are the same way. Africans—on that
continent—obviously have no history of a wealth creating economy, and with
Southern slavery, and now welfare slavery, huge numbers of American blacks
still understand nothing about the process.
The Democratic Party keeps them in slavery today—reliance upon
government. It’s not called slavery, of
course, but that’s basically what it is.
Blacks could leave it, but they won’t.
Why should they? They can have
everything they want, given to them by the Democratic Party, without having to
work for it. Blacks aren’t going to vote
against the hand that feeds them. That
liberalism has basically destroyed the black family and greatly degraded them
as a people is something that, tragically, black Americans cannot see. As a whole, they have not been able to break
away from their addiction to government; it has been no easier for them to do
so than for a drug addict to sever his dependency. What can the Republicans put forward to
counter it? Responsible freedom is no
longer popular in the United States.
The
“Tea Party”—the Romney supporters, the people who built America, the people who
make it work—are now the minority. An
increasing number of Anglos are even turning against the founding principles,
and there just aren’t enough left any more to elect someone of those
beliefs. Perhaps the next four years
will be such a disaster for the country that there will be a backlash in 2016
and a Republican can win the presidency again.
But the last four years have been horrible, too, and Obama won re-election
easily. The understanding of moral and
economic law is virtually nil in the majority of Americans today. They can be easily demogogued and the
Democrats are much better at that than the Republicans are. There is at least a little bit of honesty
left in the Republican Party (though not much).
The Democrats have no morals at all, except when expediency demands
it. And, increasingly in America, as
this current election shows, expediency is not
demanding it.
Ultimately,
as I’ve said before, America’s problem is not economic or political, America’s
problem is moral and spiritual; it’s not an imbalance on the bottom line of a
budget, but a rot deep in the hearts of too many people. It doesn’t matter what kind of government a
country has, if it has lousy people, it’s going to be a lousy country, and it
will elect lousy leaders—a reflection of that populous. A nation can exist, for a while, on the
moral, spiritual capital of preceding generations; Rome did it for a rather
long time. An old building can stand for
an extended period if it has a strong foundation. Hosea announced Israel’s unavoidable doom at
least 40 or 50 years before it happened (Hosea 1). So there’s no timetable here, only an
inevitability.
There
is no perfection, of course, in either political party or in any human
being. Mitt Romney was a better option
than Barack Obama, but the Republican candidate wasn’t ideal, either. Perfection exists only on the other side of
the grave. We can point the way, but we
cannot force humans to believe it. And,
if we are wise—which very few people are—we will study the Bible and history to
learn its lessons. Since so few people
do that, nations decline and fall—the predictable outcome of ignoring God and
His will.
Now
it is America’s turn. It was, frankly, ultimately
inescapable from the beginning of the nation because Americans really aren’t
special, they are humans, too, and subject to all the inexorable laws of God
and the consequences of rejecting them.
We are the lucky ones who get to watch it.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
A 1980 Repeat?
The old adage "history repeats itself" has some merit, but needs some qualification. Exact events are not repetitious, of course, but the eternal principles and truths that actuate those events are repeatable, and that's why we can study history and learn from it. Nothing is absolute from the standpoint that God has allowed flexibility in the system He created. Thus, every general truth is just that--only general. "A soft answer turneth away wrath," Proverbs 15:1 reads, and while that is often true, it is not an absolute. And we humans can be very thankful that God is longsuffering for if He gave us what we deserved the first time we sinned, we would be doomed for eternity. Men take advantage of that longsuffering for their own gain (Ecclesiastes 8:11) and God's patience procrastinates their inevitable judgment.
Shakespeare understood it: "Nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy." As a result, sin and wickedness abound, though eventually, no one escapes.
But, the point here is, history (and the Bible) teach us that, overall, things like thrift, hard work, and virtue are better for a country than profligacy, sloth, and debauchery. No country has ever had 100% of either, but the more virtue a people have, the longer they can survive. And you don't need the Bible to tell you that. The quote from Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler in my post yesterday is a good, brief summation. Righteousness exalts a nation, sin debases it; is there anyone, except a Democrat, who would say that profligacy, sloth, and debauchery are better for a country than thrift, hard work, and virtue? Again, it is important to emphasize that, because of the patience of God, the wicked sometimes prosper, individually and even collectively. Such prosperity, however, will not last forever. The longer a people maintain a higher rate of virtue than immorality there will be success and strength. But once the scales are tipped in favor of a rejection of the eternal moral principles of God, the decline and fall are unavoidable. If you keep jumping out a 3rd story window, you might be able to survive a few times. But eventually you are probably going to break your neck.
The question I have been asking myself in recent times is, has America reached that tipping point? It is virtually impossible to accurately pinpoint it; when did Rome reach it? The parallels between this presidential election and the one in 1980 are rather striking--a Democratic President had been elected in 1976 during a time of relative national malaise, but whose policies, because they were rooted in a philosophy that cannot succeed, made matters worse. The American people recognized that, and Jimmy Carter was soundly defeated by a Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan, though, up until the vote, the election looked very close. This year, we have largely the same circumstance. The 2008 election was in the midst of a recession. The American people, not listening to history (or Obama), elected a man whose policies were, like Carter's, destined to fail. Economic law is not as longsuffering as God, and, like Carter, Obama has been a dismal failure. Everything points to a 1980 repeat.
And it might happen. There are some who have suggested that Mitt Romney will win a decisive victory, though nothing in the neighborhood of Reagan's landslide. We are 32 years into the future from 1980, and while 32 years is not really a very long time historically, it can be long enough to allow for major changes. And that has been the question I have asked myself--have the last 32 years sounded the death knoll of America? The northeastern part of the country, which went for the conservative Reagan in both 1980 and 1984, is completely gone. It matters not how incompetent a President is (and how could any be more unqualified or incompetent than Barack Obama?), if the candidate is a Democrat, the Yankees are going to vote for him. Have enough of the demographics in the country changed, in the last 32 years, to push America past that tipping point from (mostly) virtue to (mostly) debauchery? The fact that people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could get elected to the presidency in the first place is unequivocal evidence that the United States is heading in that direction. Has it gone over the edge? Perhaps it is the depression that I suffer from that leads me to conclude that, yes, it has, which is why, yesterday, I posted that I thought Obama would win. And he might.
However, I'm not sure that's going to happen. America will reach that point of no return; all democracies/republics eventually do. But I can't say I would be surprised if Romney wins. He looks presidential, he sounds presidential, he's a good, decent man, far from perfect and never my first choice. Put him side-by-side with Barack Obama, however, and it is man versus child, a responsible grown-up against a petulant, whining adolescent. The 7,000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal might yet be enough to keep America alive for awhile longer. If Romney wins, though, even against a far, far inferior president--and person--than even Jimmy Carter, it will be a relatively close election (relative to 1980). That right there says the direction America has been going for the last three decades.
Incidentally, I am right where I was in 1980. I haven't changed because the Bible hasn't changed and history hasn't changed. Have you?
But, the point here is, history (and the Bible) teach us that, overall, things like thrift, hard work, and virtue are better for a country than profligacy, sloth, and debauchery. No country has ever had 100% of either, but the more virtue a people have, the longer they can survive. And you don't need the Bible to tell you that. The quote from Sir Alexander Fraser Tyler in my post yesterday is a good, brief summation. Righteousness exalts a nation, sin debases it; is there anyone, except a Democrat, who would say that profligacy, sloth, and debauchery are better for a country than thrift, hard work, and virtue? Again, it is important to emphasize that, because of the patience of God, the wicked sometimes prosper, individually and even collectively. Such prosperity, however, will not last forever. The longer a people maintain a higher rate of virtue than immorality there will be success and strength. But once the scales are tipped in favor of a rejection of the eternal moral principles of God, the decline and fall are unavoidable. If you keep jumping out a 3rd story window, you might be able to survive a few times. But eventually you are probably going to break your neck.
The question I have been asking myself in recent times is, has America reached that tipping point? It is virtually impossible to accurately pinpoint it; when did Rome reach it? The parallels between this presidential election and the one in 1980 are rather striking--a Democratic President had been elected in 1976 during a time of relative national malaise, but whose policies, because they were rooted in a philosophy that cannot succeed, made matters worse. The American people recognized that, and Jimmy Carter was soundly defeated by a Republican candidate, Ronald Reagan, though, up until the vote, the election looked very close. This year, we have largely the same circumstance. The 2008 election was in the midst of a recession. The American people, not listening to history (or Obama), elected a man whose policies were, like Carter's, destined to fail. Economic law is not as longsuffering as God, and, like Carter, Obama has been a dismal failure. Everything points to a 1980 repeat.
And it might happen. There are some who have suggested that Mitt Romney will win a decisive victory, though nothing in the neighborhood of Reagan's landslide. We are 32 years into the future from 1980, and while 32 years is not really a very long time historically, it can be long enough to allow for major changes. And that has been the question I have asked myself--have the last 32 years sounded the death knoll of America? The northeastern part of the country, which went for the conservative Reagan in both 1980 and 1984, is completely gone. It matters not how incompetent a President is (and how could any be more unqualified or incompetent than Barack Obama?), if the candidate is a Democrat, the Yankees are going to vote for him. Have enough of the demographics in the country changed, in the last 32 years, to push America past that tipping point from (mostly) virtue to (mostly) debauchery? The fact that people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama could get elected to the presidency in the first place is unequivocal evidence that the United States is heading in that direction. Has it gone over the edge? Perhaps it is the depression that I suffer from that leads me to conclude that, yes, it has, which is why, yesterday, I posted that I thought Obama would win. And he might.
However, I'm not sure that's going to happen. America will reach that point of no return; all democracies/republics eventually do. But I can't say I would be surprised if Romney wins. He looks presidential, he sounds presidential, he's a good, decent man, far from perfect and never my first choice. Put him side-by-side with Barack Obama, however, and it is man versus child, a responsible grown-up against a petulant, whining adolescent. The 7,000 who haven't bowed the knee to Baal might yet be enough to keep America alive for awhile longer. If Romney wins, though, even against a far, far inferior president--and person--than even Jimmy Carter, it will be a relatively close election (relative to 1980). That right there says the direction America has been going for the last three decades.
Incidentally, I am right where I was in 1980. I haven't changed because the Bible hasn't changed and history hasn't changed. Have you?
Monday, November 5, 2012
Who's Going to Win?
It is very, very difficult to tell, but it appears to me that Obama will, indeed, get a second term. Here is, historically, the best explanation for an Obama victory. It is (reputedly) Sir Alexander Fraser Tytler's quote of over 200 years ago:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence--
--From bondage to spiritual faith;
--From spiritual faith to great courage;
--From courage to liberty;
--From liberty to abundance;
--From abundance to selfishness;
--From selfishness to complacency;
--From complacency to apathy;
--From apathy to dependency;
--From dependency back into bondage."
An Obama victory would mean America has descended to the next-to-last stage in this process--dependency. For too long, decent people in America, lovers of truth and liberty, did not fight back (apathy) against the degenerate liberal philosophy that sapped individual initiative, personal responsibility, industry, morality, and faith. Evil can run around the world twice while truth is putting its shoes on. Hollywood was allowed to dictate the culture, pseudo-science (evolution) undermined faith in God, excellence and virtue were ridiculed, not exalted, and politicians were allowed to create, via the welfare state, a huge underclass of people who do not have the will or desire--or need--to work. Too late, it appears, many Americans have woken up to what their country has become--a depraved, dissolute, European copycat. Even should Mitt Romney win, the country is beyond salvation; the wound is incurable. A Romney victory would only delay the inevitable. The increasing Hispanicization of the United States guarantees ultimate bondage, i.e., dictatorship. That's all those people have ever known in their history, and they are bringing it with them to America. I'm not blaming them, that's simply the history of the cultures from which they come. They can only bring with them what they know--and that is what they know. Couple that with the countless millions of Americans who already look to government for their lifeblood and sustenance, and the conclusion--dependence and ultimate bondage--is foreseeable and unavoidable. Responsible freedom--which is the opposite of liberal licentiousness--never lasts long. It's too difficult for most people, and politicians certainly want nothing of the sort in the people they seek to control.
America is a classic case of Professor Tytler's analysis. Barack Obama has been an absolutely horrible President, easily one of the worst the country has ever had. There is virtually nothing to commend in his four years in office, and much to condemn. Unless...one...understands...history...it is amazing that a country that could produce George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Patrick Henry and a host of like-minded, brilliant persona, could descend to electing unqualified incompetents like Obama. In an earlier, positive stage in the country's history, Obama would never have been elected--not because of the color of his skin but because of the content of his character. But as America sags further below mediocrity and deeper into a quagmire of debauchery and depravity, people like Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama become the norm, and are exalted as heroes by the opinion-formers in society. And, because morality has been turned upside now (for the umpteenth time in history) excellence and exceptionalism almost disappear and are venomously denounced and reviled. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton certainly do not want to be compared to moral virtue and excellence! So destroy the good, and make evil and cultural rot the new "virtue". It's a shame, but it's history. It's no surprise to me at all.
A Romney victory would be an America still gasping for breath, but living on life support. An Obama victory will be USA, RIP. The latter is my prediction for Tuesday.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence--
--From bondage to spiritual faith;
--From spiritual faith to great courage;
--From courage to liberty;
--From liberty to abundance;
--From abundance to selfishness;
--From selfishness to complacency;
--From complacency to apathy;
--From apathy to dependency;
--From dependency back into bondage."
An Obama victory would mean America has descended to the next-to-last stage in this process--dependency. For too long, decent people in America, lovers of truth and liberty, did not fight back (apathy) against the degenerate liberal philosophy that sapped individual initiative, personal responsibility, industry, morality, and faith. Evil can run around the world twice while truth is putting its shoes on. Hollywood was allowed to dictate the culture, pseudo-science (evolution) undermined faith in God, excellence and virtue were ridiculed, not exalted, and politicians were allowed to create, via the welfare state, a huge underclass of people who do not have the will or desire--or need--to work. Too late, it appears, many Americans have woken up to what their country has become--a depraved, dissolute, European copycat. Even should Mitt Romney win, the country is beyond salvation; the wound is incurable. A Romney victory would only delay the inevitable. The increasing Hispanicization of the United States guarantees ultimate bondage, i.e., dictatorship. That's all those people have ever known in their history, and they are bringing it with them to America. I'm not blaming them, that's simply the history of the cultures from which they come. They can only bring with them what they know--and that is what they know. Couple that with the countless millions of Americans who already look to government for their lifeblood and sustenance, and the conclusion--dependence and ultimate bondage--is foreseeable and unavoidable. Responsible freedom--which is the opposite of liberal licentiousness--never lasts long. It's too difficult for most people, and politicians certainly want nothing of the sort in the people they seek to control.
America is a classic case of Professor Tytler's analysis. Barack Obama has been an absolutely horrible President, easily one of the worst the country has ever had. There is virtually nothing to commend in his four years in office, and much to condemn. Unless...one...understands...history...it is amazing that a country that could produce George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Patrick Henry and a host of like-minded, brilliant persona, could descend to electing unqualified incompetents like Obama. In an earlier, positive stage in the country's history, Obama would never have been elected--not because of the color of his skin but because of the content of his character. But as America sags further below mediocrity and deeper into a quagmire of debauchery and depravity, people like Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama become the norm, and are exalted as heroes by the opinion-formers in society. And, because morality has been turned upside now (for the umpteenth time in history) excellence and exceptionalism almost disappear and are venomously denounced and reviled. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton certainly do not want to be compared to moral virtue and excellence! So destroy the good, and make evil and cultural rot the new "virtue". It's a shame, but it's history. It's no surprise to me at all.
A Romney victory would be an America still gasping for breath, but living on life support. An Obama victory will be USA, RIP. The latter is my prediction for Tuesday.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Interesting Recent Headlines
Barack Obama: "Voting is the best revenge." For what? Who is he trying to get revenge on? He made this statement off-script, when, for a brief moment, he wasn't reading his teleprompter. One more instance of Obama's inability to do anything that basically isn't according to script. Where people got the idea he is intelligent, I do not know. Well, yes, I do. The American media said he was. That, in itself, is virtually a priori evidence against the assertion. Believe me, folks, having a degree from Harvard does NOT make one intelligent. Indeed, in my opinion, it is virtually a priori evidence against....
**********
"Black pastor receives death threats after reversing support." A black preacher in Sacramento, California, voted for Obama in 2008, but said he will not do so this time. He's not the only black clergyman who has announced that he will not support Obama this time, especially because of the President's support for homosexual "marriage". It is very nice to see that there are some black people whose religion is more important to them than their color. Unfortunately, that is not the case for many black people, and some have apparently threatened this preacher.
These threats are one more fine example of "tolerant" liberalism.
**********
"Obama supporters step up riot threats." There have been numerous cases of people posting on Twitter (and other social media) saying, if Obama loses, they will riot and/or assassinate Mr. Romney. Most of such posts are too profane to put on a decent blog. I haven't seen any examples of Tea Party people announcing that they are going to riot or kill Mr. Obama if he is victorious Tuesday. Perhaps they exist; I only say I have not seen them if they do.
**********
HBO Comedian Bill Maher, who is an avid Obama backer, speaking to Romney supporters: "If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you".
I wonder what would happen if a conservative comedian had said to Obama supporters, "White people know who you are and they will come after you." Well, no, I don't wonder what would happen, I know what would happen--such a person would be fried alive in the media. Bill Maher will, naturally, keep his job.
I, for one, do not believe that any significant number of blacks will riot in the United States if Mr. Romney wins. I think most of them are far better people than that. I certainly hope they don't. Because, if they do, as Bill Maher suggests, know who Romney supporters are and go after them, they are liable to find out that many of those Romney supporters are also members of the NRA....
**********
"Black pastor receives death threats after reversing support." A black preacher in Sacramento, California, voted for Obama in 2008, but said he will not do so this time. He's not the only black clergyman who has announced that he will not support Obama this time, especially because of the President's support for homosexual "marriage". It is very nice to see that there are some black people whose religion is more important to them than their color. Unfortunately, that is not the case for many black people, and some have apparently threatened this preacher.
These threats are one more fine example of "tolerant" liberalism.
**********
"Obama supporters step up riot threats." There have been numerous cases of people posting on Twitter (and other social media) saying, if Obama loses, they will riot and/or assassinate Mr. Romney. Most of such posts are too profane to put on a decent blog. I haven't seen any examples of Tea Party people announcing that they are going to riot or kill Mr. Obama if he is victorious Tuesday. Perhaps they exist; I only say I have not seen them if they do.
**********
HBO Comedian Bill Maher, who is an avid Obama backer, speaking to Romney supporters: "If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you".
I wonder what would happen if a conservative comedian had said to Obama supporters, "White people know who you are and they will come after you." Well, no, I don't wonder what would happen, I know what would happen--such a person would be fried alive in the media. Bill Maher will, naturally, keep his job.
I, for one, do not believe that any significant number of blacks will riot in the United States if Mr. Romney wins. I think most of them are far better people than that. I certainly hope they don't. Because, if they do, as Bill Maher suggests, know who Romney supporters are and go after them, they are liable to find out that many of those Romney supporters are also members of the NRA....
The Sandy Disaster
I've been looking at some of the pictures and scanning some of the stories about the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in the northeast. President Obama showed up, had his picture taken with a concerned expression on his face, hugged a few people, then went off to try to win re-election. That's not intended as a criticism of Obama; that's what politicians do. In the face of natural disastars, it's about all they can do.
President Bush was crucified mercilessly for the governmental failures after Hurricane Katrina. The situation is just as bad, if not worse, with Sandy. The fact that government has been so inept is not Bush's or Obama's fault; government, by its very nature, is simply incapable of dealing with such matters. National government is the nationalization of force; as the American Founders well realized, government's sole purpose is the protection of individual rights (property rights). It is the only thing government can do well. It is simply not designed, inherently, to do benevolent work, redistribute income without creating dependence, "invest" in business, stop the rise of oceans, change the weather, etc. etc. etc. America's wise founders understood that, and deliberately omitted, from the Constitution, any power for government to do benevolent work. The only real failure of government in the Katrina--and now Sandy--disasters is in leading people to believe that government can effectively deal with these catastrophes and has a responsibility to do so. No, and no. History, reason, and common sense all oppose that. But, the American people do not study history any more, and tragically, reason and common sense are in short supply among nearly every class of citizen.
Neither political party has the personnel, on the national or local level, to solve this problem. My dear brother, thoroughly frustrated, told me he is going to vote for a third party candidate this year, and that is certainly his right to do so, more power to him. But that's not the answer, either. The problem is not the politicians, the problem is the people who elect them in the first place. And until there is a virtuous, self-disciplined revival among the mass of American people, until the citizens of the country start accepting responsibility for their own lives and actions, begin taking care of themselves, and stop asking government to do it for them--something government is wholly unequipped to do--the problem will never be solved. And that revival isn't going to happen because one of the major principles of liberalism (embodied by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in particular) is to prevent that very thing from happening.
President Bush was crucified mercilessly for the governmental failures after Hurricane Katrina. The situation is just as bad, if not worse, with Sandy. The fact that government has been so inept is not Bush's or Obama's fault; government, by its very nature, is simply incapable of dealing with such matters. National government is the nationalization of force; as the American Founders well realized, government's sole purpose is the protection of individual rights (property rights). It is the only thing government can do well. It is simply not designed, inherently, to do benevolent work, redistribute income without creating dependence, "invest" in business, stop the rise of oceans, change the weather, etc. etc. etc. America's wise founders understood that, and deliberately omitted, from the Constitution, any power for government to do benevolent work. The only real failure of government in the Katrina--and now Sandy--disasters is in leading people to believe that government can effectively deal with these catastrophes and has a responsibility to do so. No, and no. History, reason, and common sense all oppose that. But, the American people do not study history any more, and tragically, reason and common sense are in short supply among nearly every class of citizen.
Neither political party has the personnel, on the national or local level, to solve this problem. My dear brother, thoroughly frustrated, told me he is going to vote for a third party candidate this year, and that is certainly his right to do so, more power to him. But that's not the answer, either. The problem is not the politicians, the problem is the people who elect them in the first place. And until there is a virtuous, self-disciplined revival among the mass of American people, until the citizens of the country start accepting responsibility for their own lives and actions, begin taking care of themselves, and stop asking government to do it for them--something government is wholly unequipped to do--the problem will never be solved. And that revival isn't going to happen because one of the major principles of liberalism (embodied by Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in particular) is to prevent that very thing from happening.
Friday, November 2, 2012
This is Progress?
Headline today: "40.7% of Babies Born to Unmarried Women"
No, this isn't progress. And it certainly isn't Christianity. It's modern liberalism, and it's the Democratic Party. When you defend sex outside of marriage under the false guise of "freedom" and "progress," you are compelled to accept the consequences of that doctrine.
This figure obviously does nothing to improve the moral, spiritual, or economic health of the country. And this is one thing that Mitt Romney--that no human being--can do anything about. Congress could pull the plug on the money that supports this (they won't); but that won't change the hearts of men and women who have been led by Hollywood, pop stars, and even many political leaders, to believe that a hedonistic lifestyle has no personal consequences that won't be paid for by somebody else.
Compassion is not condoning people when they do the wrong thing; compassion is teaching them not to do the wrong thing in the first place, and often, requiring them to face the consequences of their actions so they will learn from them.
No, this isn't progress. And it certainly isn't Christianity. It's modern liberalism, and it's the Democratic Party. When you defend sex outside of marriage under the false guise of "freedom" and "progress," you are compelled to accept the consequences of that doctrine.
This figure obviously does nothing to improve the moral, spiritual, or economic health of the country. And this is one thing that Mitt Romney--that no human being--can do anything about. Congress could pull the plug on the money that supports this (they won't); but that won't change the hearts of men and women who have been led by Hollywood, pop stars, and even many political leaders, to believe that a hedonistic lifestyle has no personal consequences that won't be paid for by somebody else.
Compassion is not condoning people when they do the wrong thing; compassion is teaching them not to do the wrong thing in the first place, and often, requiring them to face the consequences of their actions so they will learn from them.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
A Romney Administration?
The possibility that Mitt Romney might win the election next week is not as far-fetched as it was a few weeks. His strong performance in the debates and the obvious weaknesses of the Obama administration has no doubt given Romney some momentum. The polls are all over the place; who knows which one(s) to believe? The "mainstream" media cannot be trusted on any matter now. They are blatantly--blatantly--in the Obama camp, and are making absolutely no pretense at objectivity. What a gross dereliction of duty by a once-great institution--the American media. It is difficult to tell who is going to win the election, especially from where I sit 10,000 miles away. But I do believe Romney may win, and with that possibility in mind, I'd like to consider what a Romney administration might look like and what might happen over the next four years.
First, if Romney wins, there will almost surely be a significant economic revival in the country. As has been endlessly reported (everywhere except in the pro-Obama media), American businessmen are scared to death of Barack Obama and aren't going to risk their money while he is in office. Romney would invite and encourage business investment, hopefully repeal the econmy-clogging Obamacare, and provide a positive atmosphere for job creation. If Romney wins, look for an unemployment rate of 5% within two years, if not sooner. That would certainly be a positive, and would probably earn him another four years in office.
Second, in foreign affairs. Mitt Romney will strengthen the American military, not bow down to foreign leaders, and not apologize for his country. This will, of course, make America more unpopular around the world. For example, a recent poll in Russia indicates the people of that country favor Obama's re-election by a 41-8% margin (I don't know what the 51% thought, the story didn't say. Perhaps they had no opinion.). "Mitt Romney will take us back to the days of George Bush," is one of the major battle cries of the Obama forces.
This scares a lot of people, of course, who fear Romney would drag us into another war. If he does, however, it will largely be the fault of Barack Obama, who by showing weakness and guilt, has invited America's enemies to become stronger and more aggressive. I don't believe Romney wants a war, and we don't need to go to war with Iran. But then, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons, either. Obama has done nothing to prevent Iran from obtaining them, but, to be fair to him, it's not altogether clear, short of war, what he could have done. Sanctions aren't going to work on Ahmadinejad, mainly because he doesn't care what happens to his people, and they cannot do anything to displace him. Romney will, at least, make sure America is prepared for the worst. That is a necessity. My suggestion would be, if Iran does end up with nuclear weapons, make it very clear to them that, if they ever use them, Iran would cease to exist on this planet. Of course, that would start World War III. There is no good scenario for a nuclear war. America must be militarily strong. Mitt Romney would see to that; Barack Obama has given every indication he wants to weaken America's armed forces. Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace." He also said--and I must paraphrase here because I cannot, at the moment, lay my hands on his exact words--but something to the effect that we, in America, are forever for peace. But to maintain peace, we must always be ready for war. (Roosevelt also said, "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." That is a little irrelevant to this article, but still worth quoting because of its truth.) Romney doesn't want a war; but he won't run from one, either, and he'll have America ready, if necessary.
Thirdly, and as I have written many times before, America's biggest problem is not economic, or some imagined "military-industrial complex." America's problem is not even Washington, D.C. America's biggest problem is moral--and that is within the hearts of men and beyond the reach of any President. Obama, because so many people admired and adored him, could have helped direct many of his countrymen back to God, decency, and righteousness. But then, he doesn't believe in those things, and he would never have gotten the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008 if he had. So we see in America a continual, and rising, immorality--rejection of individual responsibility, abortion, homosexuality, feminism, extra-marital sex, drug abuse, Hollywood violence, sex, verbal filth; pile on top of that the fact that so many Americans willingly live off the hard work of others, with no shame for any of it--and you have the real problems plaguing the country. Democracies, more than any other type of government, need a noble, industrious, frugal, virtuous, self-disciplined people. There are many, many people still like that in America, of course, perhaps enough to elect Mitt Romney. But the Democratic Party, tragically, has given itself almost totally to that anti-Christian, hedonistic element, elevating and exalting is as "progress". Mitt Romney--no one--will be able to change that. Only God can, and He frequently does that, in history, by flushing the whole thing down the toilet and starting over again.
Mitt Romney is not the greatest man on earth and he would almost surely not be a great President; it may not be possible, in America, for anyone to rise to greatness, politically, any more. His election depends upon one thing--whether there are still enough people left in the United States who believe in the principles that founded America and made the country great (great, not perfect). Next Tuesday will answer that question.
First, if Romney wins, there will almost surely be a significant economic revival in the country. As has been endlessly reported (everywhere except in the pro-Obama media), American businessmen are scared to death of Barack Obama and aren't going to risk their money while he is in office. Romney would invite and encourage business investment, hopefully repeal the econmy-clogging Obamacare, and provide a positive atmosphere for job creation. If Romney wins, look for an unemployment rate of 5% within two years, if not sooner. That would certainly be a positive, and would probably earn him another four years in office.
Second, in foreign affairs. Mitt Romney will strengthen the American military, not bow down to foreign leaders, and not apologize for his country. This will, of course, make America more unpopular around the world. For example, a recent poll in Russia indicates the people of that country favor Obama's re-election by a 41-8% margin (I don't know what the 51% thought, the story didn't say. Perhaps they had no opinion.). "Mitt Romney will take us back to the days of George Bush," is one of the major battle cries of the Obama forces.
This scares a lot of people, of course, who fear Romney would drag us into another war. If he does, however, it will largely be the fault of Barack Obama, who by showing weakness and guilt, has invited America's enemies to become stronger and more aggressive. I don't believe Romney wants a war, and we don't need to go to war with Iran. But then, Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons, either. Obama has done nothing to prevent Iran from obtaining them, but, to be fair to him, it's not altogether clear, short of war, what he could have done. Sanctions aren't going to work on Ahmadinejad, mainly because he doesn't care what happens to his people, and they cannot do anything to displace him. Romney will, at least, make sure America is prepared for the worst. That is a necessity. My suggestion would be, if Iran does end up with nuclear weapons, make it very clear to them that, if they ever use them, Iran would cease to exist on this planet. Of course, that would start World War III. There is no good scenario for a nuclear war. America must be militarily strong. Mitt Romney would see to that; Barack Obama has given every indication he wants to weaken America's armed forces. Theodore Roosevelt once said, "Wars are, of course, as a rule to be avoided; but they are far better than certain kinds of peace." He also said--and I must paraphrase here because I cannot, at the moment, lay my hands on his exact words--but something to the effect that we, in America, are forever for peace. But to maintain peace, we must always be ready for war. (Roosevelt also said, "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." That is a little irrelevant to this article, but still worth quoting because of its truth.) Romney doesn't want a war; but he won't run from one, either, and he'll have America ready, if necessary.
Thirdly, and as I have written many times before, America's biggest problem is not economic, or some imagined "military-industrial complex." America's problem is not even Washington, D.C. America's biggest problem is moral--and that is within the hearts of men and beyond the reach of any President. Obama, because so many people admired and adored him, could have helped direct many of his countrymen back to God, decency, and righteousness. But then, he doesn't believe in those things, and he would never have gotten the nomination of the Democratic Party in 2008 if he had. So we see in America a continual, and rising, immorality--rejection of individual responsibility, abortion, homosexuality, feminism, extra-marital sex, drug abuse, Hollywood violence, sex, verbal filth; pile on top of that the fact that so many Americans willingly live off the hard work of others, with no shame for any of it--and you have the real problems plaguing the country. Democracies, more than any other type of government, need a noble, industrious, frugal, virtuous, self-disciplined people. There are many, many people still like that in America, of course, perhaps enough to elect Mitt Romney. But the Democratic Party, tragically, has given itself almost totally to that anti-Christian, hedonistic element, elevating and exalting is as "progress". Mitt Romney--no one--will be able to change that. Only God can, and He frequently does that, in history, by flushing the whole thing down the toilet and starting over again.
Mitt Romney is not the greatest man on earth and he would almost surely not be a great President; it may not be possible, in America, for anyone to rise to greatness, politically, any more. His election depends upon one thing--whether there are still enough people left in the United States who believe in the principles that founded America and made the country great (great, not perfect). Next Tuesday will answer that question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)