Current Event Ramblings, October 27

It's been a really busy semester and that's interfered with my writing and some other things I wanted to do.  But I've got a few minutes and have a few thoughts.......

The Democrats are running a TV ad aimed at young people.  Some sleazy actress compares voting for Obama the first time to the feeling one gets from losing his/her virginity.  Absolutely, utterly disgusting.  But that is the Democratic Party now.  Obviously, Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party see nothing wrong with this kind of appeal.  There are very few taboos to these people, and the mindset that would even think of an ad like that is indicative of how far into immoral slime the Democrats have sunk.  It also tells us that Obama has nothing positive to run on.

It really looks, at the moment, like Mitt Romney is going to win the election.  Barack Obama has been a horrible President; I knew--and said--four years ago that he would be, and it's only ignorance of history and the Bible that ever had any hope that he would do a good job.  Such ignorance still supports him.  And there is no excuse for it, not in this day and age.  This election should not even be close.  It borders on amazing that any American would support Obama.  Yet, he still has a chance to win.  The vast majority of blacks, who have absolutely no ability to think for themselves, will vote for Obama.  It's a racist thing, and most blacks are far more racist than most whites.  An increasing number of Americans are living off other people, have no conscience about it, and fear losing their lazy lifestyle; Obama certainly appeals to those people.  There is also--and don't underestimate this--an increasing number of people who hate Christianity and everything it stands for.  That is just about the only way a white, working individual could support Barack Obama, and it largely explains his support in the notheastern part of the country, which is largely white.  They hate the South, they always have, and it's a moral issue, not economic or anything else.  That number of Americans is growing, too.  And, of course, the Democrats will do anything they can to win; no scruples.  If they can steal the election by voter fraud, they will do it.  Make no mistake about that, either.  Any group of people that would support the murder of unborn children, the rights of queers to get "married", and disgusting TV ads like the one mentioned above, certainly would have no qualms about lying about voting, and no conscience about stealing an election.

The simple question is--the only question is--do there remain enough decent Americans to elect Mitt Romney?  Romney is certainly not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he is a decent human being, and Barack Obama is nothing but a lying, Chicago thug.  He never was qualified to be President, he was a media creation from the very beginning.  He is not especially intelligent,  has no talent except to read, from a teleprompter, a speech written by somebody else, he is an amoral Marxist, who is the most radical, left-wing President ever elected.  And, frankly, all this was known four years ago; this is not new. The "mainstream" American media, who put him in power in the first place by their savage attacks on George Bush and their Messianic exaltation of Obama, is doing everything they can to get him re-elected.  The reason Romney might win is that, now, Obama has a four-year record as President, and it's a horrible one.  Obama has wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars and put the country deeper in debt.  Americans realize that making the decision to kill Osama bin Laden did not take a lot of intestinal fortitutde; only Bill Clinton wouldn't make a decision like that.  The economy has not recovered (the 7.8% unemployment rate is a joke), and it will not and cannot under Obama's policies.  The world is not a safer place, and Libyan disaster can be laid right at Obama's feet.  He knew about it almost immediately, and just as quickly, in a clear case of CYA, he lied about repeatedly.  For all his talk of "healing" the country, he is as partisan as any President in history.   

But, yet, he still might win.  The fact that almost half the people are going to vote for him indicates how little education Americans have, and how far the country has drifted from decency, morality, and plain old common sense.  This election will tell if America has passed the point of no return.

Why the Presidential Race is Close

There's two ways of looking at the "why the race is close" question.  Given the condition of the United States, both domestically and its foreign policy, Mitt Romney should win the election in a landslide.  Barack Obama's incompetence is manifest, and another four years of his policies are indeed horrifying to contemplate.

But then, given the fact, that almost none of Obama's bungling is being fairly reported in the "mainstream media," that they are doing everything they can to destroy Romney and cover for Obama, it's amazing, from that standpoint, that the race is as close as it is.  Romney makes a mistake and it's plastered all over the country.  Obama is protected as tightly as possible.  But, as the Nazi well knew, the bigger the lie, the more people are apt to believe it.

Why is the race close?  Because America is not the same country as before.

Basically, the United States has become the Chicago teachers' union--many people living off of somebody else (at least the teachers work for it). And they want more. About 47% of the country doesn't pay any income tax. Over 8,000,000 are living on disability. Over 45,000,000 on food stamps. 67% of the people who claim to Democrats say the government isn't doing enough.  This is, obviously, not the America of the past, nor is it a recipe for continued greatness.

Think about it.  If somebody comes along and says, "I'm going to cut your taxes," that means nothing to half the people.  Indeed, that half wants the other half taxed more.

If Barack Obama can convince enough people that the Republicans are going to take away their government benefits, then that's another countless number of millions of people who will vote for Obama.

And, of course, there is the anti-God vote--a growing number of people who want their immoral rights, not just defended, but accepted as mainstream and given the same moral status as the laws which God has given to us. They will vote for Obama, too.

So, it doesn't matter how bad the economy is. It doesn't matter how big a liar Barack Obama is. It doesn't matter how disastrous American foreign policy is.

Romney was exactly right.  Obama has almost half the people ready to vote for him because it's in their selfish interest to do so.  People will vote what they perceive to be their own interests, and the United States government, led by the Democratic Party, has made dependency and immorality the "interest" of about half the country.  What a sad, sad thing that is. 

Alexander Tyler once again:  "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."  The United States has been living on borrowed time anyway.

American Foreign Policy I

American foreign policy, right now, is in shambles. The mess in the Middle East is simply symptomatic of it. It's not all Barack Obama's fault, though he has certainly made things worse. Liberals do not understand a cardinal principle of humanity, and that is, some people are just evil and understand nothing short of the business end of a gun. Paul Johnson, the great British historian, wrote, "The experience of the 20th century indicates that self-imposed restraints by a civilized power are worse than useless. They are interpreted by friend and foe alike, not of humanity, but of guilt and lack of righteous conviction" (Modern Times, 636). If you try to be "nice" to some people, they will take advantage of you. To these thugs in the Middle East, "niceness" and "apologies" are weakness.  And weakness can, and will be exploited.  A foreign policy of apology--the cornerstone of the Obama administration policy--is doomed to failure and only encourages the kinds of actions we've seen in the past few days. If you are sorry for what you did to somebody, you certainly aren't going to try to stop them if they decide to take a piece out of your hide.

But American foreign policy issues are much deeper than Barack Obama's liberal naivete and guilt; you can trace the current malaise back at least to Theodore Roosevelt in the early 20th century, the "Imperial President," as he has sometimes been called.  Roosevelt believed that the wealth America had accrued in the previous generation should be manifested in national power and gave us the right to exercise that power as we saw fit. From that point, America, usually on its own initiative--often for good, often without warrant--begin to intervene wherever American leaders deemed necessary. And that included almost every area of the globe. Such intervention infuriated many people, and understandably so. Nobody likes a bully. Yet, in many instances, the American intervention did proved beneficial; for space' sake, I won't give examples here, I will only mention the obvious: two world wars. Defeating communism was also a worthwhile goal and the countless millions who have been liberated from Marxist tyranny would no doubt agree. The problem is, American leaders often don't know when to stop. And here is the key, here is where it came from and its continued source: the same "progressive" mentality that believes government can solve domestic problems also rules American foreign policy. If these liberal, secular elites can build a utopian country, why not a utopian world?  

There is absolutely no difference, in principle, in the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to buy health insurance and the American government trying to force people who don’t want it to have a democratic government.  Some call it the “welfare/warfare state.”  The source is the same:  “progressive,” secular intellectuals who think they know how to create an earthly utopia.  Those who opposed the war in Iraq, but who condone the welfare state at home, are being inconsistent; it’s the same mentality behind both.  Saddam Hussein needed to be stopped, just like Osama bin Laden did.  But once you kill the target, you come home.  The United States military has no business trying to nation-build.  That must be left to the people of the countries we’ve helped.  But, building a better world is what the liberal, secular elite is all about, and the so-called “neo-cons” have fallen for it, too.  The temptations of power are just too great for most mortals to resist.  Only a few, an elite, only excellence, can do it.  And mediocrity—democracy—elects excellence only by accident.  And as mediocrity slides closer and closer to barbarity, do not be surprised when utter incompetents, like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, are handed the reins of power.  The last four years are evidence of the result of such mind-boggling folly.

Americans recently died in Libya when a bunch of people, who didn’t want us there in the first place, killed them.  A question too few people are asking is, what are we doing there?  Why do we need an embassy in Libya?  Or Egypt?   Or Tunisia?  How many Americans can even find Tunisia on a map?  (Protesters are tearing up our embassy there, too).  Why do we have embassies in 95% of the countries where we have them?  What are our troops doing in South Korea?  And Japan?  And Europe?  The United States is not being invaded in South Korea, but we are being invaded on our southern border.  Why aren’t the troops there, where they are really needed?  Well, the answer to that question is obvious:   the Democrats want that southern invasion, so they can give those people amnesty and make voters out of them.  What a way to run a foreign policy.  Waste money around the world, get Americans killed in places in which we have no vital interest, and yet open the floodgates so that certain politicians can stay in power.

It’s over, folks.  America is finished, because neither political party has the will or the guts to do what is necessary to save the country—domestically or internationally.

America, of course, does have interests in the world, and the United States needs to maintain a strong military.  We must remain on the cutting edge of military technology and that will take significant sums of money.  But that is a legitimate government function—protecting its people.  We should, indeed, be concerned if Iran gets nuclear weapons; in the hands of the wrong people, such weapons could be utterly catastrophic.  The Obama way will never work.  Quit apologizing for the country.  Remain the strongest country, economically and militarily in the world, but leave other people alone, except to build friendly trade relations.  If somebody threatens us, if somebody needs their butt kicked, go do it, get it over with, and come home.  Close every embassy except a very few.  Maybe China, Russia, England.  One in South America and one in Africa, although I don’t know any safe countries in the latter continent.  I’m not going to claim wisdom enough to know every place where an embassy might truly serve our interest.  But I do know that, if the people of a country don’t want us there, if they start killing our people and burning our flags, it’s time for us to leave--not because we are running scared, but because we never should have been there in the first place.  Most of those people are going to kill somebody, because that's what they have been doing their entire history.  I wish they would all convert to the Lord, but if they aren't going to do that, then let them kill each other; get Americans out of harm's way.  And in other regions of the world where there is really no vital interest, pack up and leave (can anybody give me a reason for having an embassy in Chile?).  “No entangling alliances,” George Washington said, and while he wasn’t necessarily talking about embassies, he was talking about a wise foreign policy that minded its own business, didn’t waste the taxpayers’ money, and protected America, not the rest of the world.  Once again, the men who founded the country knew what to do.  And the people running the country today—and for most of the 20th century—have made America a hated country, and cost American lives, because they refused to heed the wisdom of our forefathers.

And then…and then….there is Israel….

Quotes From Some Intelligent People

In the posts on this blog, I have often praised the thinking of America’s Founding Fathers.  They were wise, mainly for two reasons:  they understood that there is such a thing as “moral law,” directed and overseen by a Creator (most of them were strong believers in the Christian religion, though not pure New Testament Christians), and—almost as important—they knew history.   And that IS crucial.  Today’s politicians know neither.  The following are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson (one from Abraham Lincoln).  This is almost amazing, the foresight and wisdom seen in these statements.  I say, “almost amazing,” because they are not amazing to anyone who understands the Bible (the source of moral law) and history. 
The choice, Jefferson said in 1816,  is “between economy and liberty, or [government] profusion and servitude.  If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor 16 hours in the 24, give the earnings of 15 of those to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the 16th being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes.”  Or food stamps.  He is being a little facetious, obviously, in this statement, but the meaning is clear. 

Jefferson complained of federal politicians who seem “at a loss for objects whereon to throw away the supposed fathomless funds of the treasury.”

“A single consolidated government would become the most corrupt government on earth.”  The more power in the hands of government, the more corrupt it becomes.

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money (taxes) for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”  Read that again.   Now, read it again.  Following this irrefutable principle would eliminate 90% of federal spending.

“If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.”  Welfare state, anyone?

Even in his own day, Jefferson bemoaned “the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States.”  One federal judge today—one judge—can strike down a state law.   

Regarding interpreting the Constitution:  “On every question of construction [we should] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”  If the courts don’t do that, of course, then the Constitution becomes meaningless.  It can, in effect, mean anything, thus, it means nothing.

On becoming President in 1801, Jefferson slashed federal spending and abolished all domestic taxes.  He also closed several American embassies around the world as a waste of money.  What a novel idea.  He also cut military spending, although interestingly, he did have a small Middle Eastern war against some pirates who were raiding American ships.  He sent Marines to Tripoli, hence the Marine hymn, “From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli….”
And I love this one from Jefferson:  "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you've got."  I'm just...almost their wisdom and foresight.  But, then again, I'm not.

One more quote, this one from Abraham Lincoln:  “If the Almighty had ever made a set of men that should do all of the eating and none of the work, he would have made them with mouths only and no hands.”  That’s what Americans used to believe.  Well, today, some still do.  Unfortunately, the entire Democratic Party does NOT believe that, and such is the source of their political power.  And they know it.  And they aren’t about to give it up. 

To find justification for such rampant theft of honest people's money, the Democrats flee to the Marxist dogma of “zero sum” economics, i.e., that there is only so much wealth in a society, and thus, the more the rich have, the less the poor have.  “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.”  That is pure, unadulterated Marxism, and shows absolutely no understanding of wealth creation.  Jefferson, and probably Lincoln, would respond, “Well, if the rich are getting richer because they are investing, providing jobs, goods, and services that people want, and the poor are getting poorer because they are sitting around on their lazy backsides doing nothing, then the rich OUGHT to be getting richer and the poor OUGHT to be getting poorer.”  This, however, does not mitigate the propriety of charity.  There will always be poor people, of course, and those who are truly needy should be helped.  No one denies this.  No one denies this!  The question is not, and never has been, should the “needy poor” be assisted; the question is only, and always, HOW should they be helped?  Is that a legitimate function of government?  To the men who founded America, it was not, because they believed government assistance to the poor only encouraged people to look for handouts rather than become productive citizens of society.  The more government freely hands out money, the more people who will stand in line for it; that’s part of human nature that America’s Founders grasped well.  To them, charity/poverty was a moral, as much as an economic, issue.  Government welfare encourages sloth and vice, and as we can see from American society today, they obviously knew exactly what they were talking about.  

But then, they knew history and they understood the eternal, moral laws flowing from the nature of God.  America will never recover until we again get leaders of the same quality.

And if I'm going to have a quote from some intelligent people, to be fair, I must also have a quote from an idiot.  This is Jay Carney, the White House press secretary:  "this is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy, this is in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims."  Yes, a spontaneous protest that had obviously been planned for quite some time....

Just another reason Barack Obama must be removed from office for the good of the country.  He hasn't a clue what's going on in the world. 

Or maybe he agrees with the protesters.  That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

And A Few More Headlines....

I won't even bother to comment on most of these, except to can anybody believe that the United States is better off now than four years ago?

"Jobless claims rise 382,000 in latest week"  An Obama Labor Department official blamed Hurricane Isaac for the increase.  If they weren't destroying the country, Obama and his people could be really funny sometimes.

"Inflation jumps; wholesale gas up most in 3 years"

"Obama rejects Netanyahu meeting, invites Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood president to talk"

"Median income lowest since 1995"

"Lower class grows..."

"Rich-Poor Gap Widens to Most Since 1967..."  I thought that was what Obama was supposed to cure.

"Michelle O:  Being fat 'Greatest Threat to National Security."  I kid you not, folks, she said it.

"Dollar Weakens Before Fed Move"

"Protesters storm American embassy in Yemen"

"US Flags Burned at Tunisia embassy"

"New Clashes in Cairo" 

"Consulate in Berlin evacuated"

"Iraqi militia threatens U.S. interests"

Let's have four more years of this....

And if I didn't already know how brain dead, ignorant, and downright stupid millions of Americans are, then this poll figure would convince me.  In a recent Rasmussen poll, 47% of Americans (polled) trusted Obama in job creation compared to only 45% who trusted Romney more.  Here's a man who has never created a job in his life, against a man who worked, very successfully, in the private sector and created countless jobs and thus knows how to do it....and yet more Americans trust Obama to create jobs than Romney.  Brain dead.  People just don't care.  That's what Romney is up against.  People don't know or care about the well-being of the country.  They are going to vote Obama, and not one single, solitary shred of evidence will ever convince them to do otherwise.  That's frightening, for people who cannot, or who refuse to think for themselves, can and will be led by demagogues.  And demagogues have killed countless of hundreds of millions of people in history.

More Interesting Headlines and Stuff

This isn't a headline, but is the first paragraph of a New York Post article regarding the attack on the American embassy in Libya two days ago:

"US officials are increasingly suspicious that the murder Tuesday of the US ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American officials was not the result of a protest against an anti-Islam film, but instead was a coordinated terror strike timed for the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks."

I can only shake my head in amazement.  How long did it take these "US officials" to figure this out?  This is an absolutely horrendous failure of American foreign policy, and yes, Barack Obama is to blame.  Liberals don't get it that, to radical Muslims, 9/11 is a day to celebrate, not apologize for or mourn over.  Everyone of America's embassies and consulates in the Middle East should have been triple-prepared, on that day, for something to happen.  And then, intially, they want to blame some movie maker for offending Muslims?  I doubt very seriously that those people in Libya and Cairo knew a thing about that movie.  9/11 is an anniversary to them and America should have been prepared.

One fellow asked a great question: if Obama is so concerned with feelings
in the Muslim world, why is he bragging so much about killing Osama bin Laden?

Why am I not surprised that we weren't prepared for what happened two days ago?  Well, here are a couple of reasons:

Headline number 1:  "President Skips More Than Half of Intel Briefings...Report:  Spent 412 hours in economic meetings, 600 hours on the golf course"

Obama doesn't know what's going on because he doesn't care.  On top of that, even if he did, his whole philosophy makes it impossible for him to successfully deal with any major policy issue in the country.  You cannot apologize your way to national greatness or tax and regulate your way to economic growth.

Headline number 2"White House declines Netanyahu request to meet with Obama...'Schedule Full'...Announces 'Letterman' Appearance..."

Appearing on the David Letterman show is more important to the President of the United States than meeting with the head of state of one of our best friends from a country in one of the most vital, strategic, and volatile regions of the world.  Jimmy Carter was George Washington compared to this guy.

And an economic headline that explains why there has been no recovery under this administration:  "Obama Adds 11,327 Pages of Regulations in Three Years...18 pages to define 'full-time employee' for Obamacare..."

"You didn't build that...."  Well, nobody is going to build anything if Barack Obama remains President....

To the Democrats, Tyranny is a Success

Besides the killing of Osama bin Laden (which was accomplished by troops sent to the Middle East by George Bush), about the only "success" Obama is touting for his administration is "saving the auto industry"--the bailout of GM and Chrysler.  "I saved the auto industry!" he champions.  Only to Obama and liberals could tyranny be trumpeted as a success.

Why do I say this?  Well, let's consider.  Why did the auto industry (GM and Chrysler) need a "bailout" in the first place?  Put aside for a moment the horribly destructive role of the unions and the increasing number of non-productive retirees who were supported lavishly by the productive workers.  Anybody with an ounce of economic sense would be able to see that such was a recipe for eventual disaster.  But, again, set that aside and let me ask another question.

Why did the auto industry almost go bankrupt?  Basically, it was for the same reason any other company goes belly-up--it didn't provide consumers the products they wanted at prices they were willing to pay.  The American people, by and large, didn't want GM products.  A company like that should fail; if they don't provide what people want, they shouldn't be in business.  It happens every day.  But here comes Obama and forces the American people to support an industry they did not want to support on their own!  Forcibly taking people's money (taxes) and giving it to an entity they would not/did not voluntarily support is not freedom, folks.  It's tyranny.  This is only a "success" if you believe, with Obama and the Democrats, that government knows better how to spend your money than you do.  To Obama, tyranny is a success.

Actually, the bailout was for one reason--to save the unions, one of Obama's most slavish supporters.  It certainly wasn't for the good of the American people; they had spoken, loudly and clearly, with their pocketbooks, on the future of GM and Chrysler.  But, increasingly the federal government--and the Democratic Party almost absolutely--governs against the will of the people.  I grant you, most people are stupid and do stupid things with their money.  But freedom means people have that right, and often will learn from their mistakes if not "saved" from the consequences of those mistakes by those who think they know better, but more often than not don't, because...well, who put them in power in the first place?

Give Stupidity the vote, and it will elect Stupidity,  Give Immorality the vote, and it will elect Immorality.  And Stupidity and Immorality in power, Stupidity and Immorality with an army and a legislative pen, is a whole lot more dangerous than Stupidity and Immorality left to its own devices.

"The Loftiest of Hopes and The Greatest of Expectations"

Dana Milbank, a liberal Washington Post columnist, wrote an article, published September 7, entitled "Obama the demigod comes down to Earth."  The first line was about the just-concluded Democratic National Convention:  "It began, like the Obama presidency itself, with the loftiest of hopes and the greatest of expectations."   Alas, for so many, those hopes and expectations have been dashed.  Sad, but far from astonishing.

No one, who truly understands the meaning of existence on this earth, is the least bit surprised that Barack Obama has been a wretched failure as President of the United States.  The fact that there ever were such "hopes" and "expectations" is decisive evidence of how far men have drifted from God and the eternal principles of truth that flow from His very nature.  There was no way, from the very beginning, that Barack Obama could succeed, because, not only was he totally unqualified for the position in the first place, but, more importantly, what he believes--and has tried to put into practice--is just wrong.  More than ever, it is strikingly self-evident to the wise that the Bible is right, and that the principles and examples found in God's Word, and illustrated repeatedly throughout the history of mankind, are once again being confirmed.  Verily, because God does not immediately punish men for their sins (Ecclesiastes 8:11), there are times when the "wicked prosper" (Job 21:7; Jeremiah 12:1).   But men cannot mock God forever, and where evil might succeed, for a time, on a limited platform, it can only prove disastrous when attempted on a grander one.  Democracies always fail, because they end up compromising the truth to please the ignorant, selfish, pleasure-seeking majorities who elect people just like themselves.  And the farther a democracy moves away from the truth, the more rapidly it declines; the "left" will destroy a country more quickly and thoroughly than the "right."  Barack Obama is the most radical leftist President the United States has ever had; the country will survive (I guess), but never recover from, four more years of his and the Democratic Pary's deliberate booing of God.  The fact that Obama has a strong chance of re-election is, as I have written repeatedly, a full indication of how tragically far America has sunk into an immoral slime pit.

The only "hope" I had when Barack Obama was elected was that God would be patient enough with America to allow it to survive four years of rampant debauchery that was sure to come, but my "expectations" have been fully met--an insidious President who operates in direct denial of history, economic, and moral law.  His failure was a given.  Nor am I the least bit surprised that countless millions of people still do not see it.  You cannot know what you have not been taught, and the greatest tragedy of all in America, and the world, is abysmal ignorance of God's Word.  "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6).  Written about 2800 years ago, yet that bells tolls as clearly today as it did in the 8th century B. C.

The Democrats and God

Rush had a great line about the Democratic delegates at the convention:  they booed God and cheered Bill Clinton.  That pretty much describes the modern day Democratic Party.  They hate righteousness and holiness, and they love adulterers and liars.  Not to mention homosexuals, abortionists, law-breakers, sluts, and moochers.

The Republicans have put out an ad/video:  "They booed God three times."  How the mighty have fallen...

Some More Interesting Headlines

The headlines keep telling us what is happening in the United States.  Here's one that should surprise no one:

Headline #1:  "Democrats Drop 'God' From Party Platform"

Well, at the least the Democrats are finally honest about something.  Their party platform doesn't mention God at all, which given their policies, is exactly what should happen.  No political party, no human being, who believes in abortion, homosexual marriage, feminism, etc. should use the word "God" in any context, except to say either, "I hate God," or "I don't believe in God."  In this case--for once--the Democrats did exactly what they should have done.

No, actually, of course, they should return to God, but since they aren't going to do that, and since they insist on defending some of the most egregiously immoral activities human beings can engage in, they should indeed distance themselves, as far as possible, from their Creator.  They can explain to Him why when they meet Him.

Headline # 2:  "Convicted murderer gets taxpayer-funded sex change"

This certainly goes a long way to explain why the United States is now $16 trillion in debt.  A federal judge claims this pervert, who killed his wife, is entitled to Americans paying for his perversion because he has "gender-identity disorder."  How in the world any sensible, rational, thinking, even semi-intelligent human being can come to a conclusion like this is completely beyond my ability to comprehend.  The United States government doesn't have the money, Judge Blithering Idiot, and to force decent human beings to pay for this is disgusting and tyrannical beyond description.  Well, maybe Joe Biden could explain it if it wasn't so hot....

Oh, wait a minute, I'm sorry, it's right there in Article One, Section Eight, of the Constitution, the powers given to Congress:  "Money shall be forcibly extracted from unwilling taxpayers to pay for sex changes for murderers."  Clearly a power the Founders gave to Congress....

Headline #3:  "DNC Video:  'The Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To'"

This speaks volumes about the beliefs of the Democratic Party.  I've got news for these tyrants:  we are citizens of the United States, we don't "belong" to any government, the government belongs to us!   Government isn't some kind of "club" we are all members of.  Government exists for one reason, and one reason, only--to serve its citizens as efficiently, thriftly, and virtuously as possible, to protect their property (not redistribute it) from enemies, within and without, who would threaten it, and otherwise leave the people alone to pursue their own socially productive goals.  Some Republicans (not many) know this; no Democrats do, as this headline testifies.

And some interesting facts:  Unemployment was 7.8% when Barack Obama took office. It's now 8.3%. Median household income was almost $55,000. It's now less than $51,000. Gas was at $1.85 a gallon when he took office. Now, it's $3.78, almost doubled. National debt was $10.6 trillion and it will go past $16 trillion this week. 

And yet, in my opinion, Barack Obama still has a better-than-even chance to get re-elected.  This just isn't the same United States as it was, even 32 years ago, when Ronald Reagan was elected over a bumbling incumbent who, frankly, wasn't nearly as radical or incompetent as Barack Obama.  You just can't hold back the tide.

Some Interesting Recent Headlines

Some interesting recent headlines garnered from hither and yon.
I forget the name of the paragon of moral righteousness who uttered these virtuous words; some thing out of Hollywood, a woman, I had never heard of her. It reminds us to never forget that there is much more to the current political climate in America than just economics. “Pro-life” means she hates people who oppose the murdering of babies. “Xenophobic” means she does not object when millions of people break the law. And “gay-bashing” needs no explanation. These people are a significant part of Barack Obama’s base.
A huge percentage, well over a majority, and probably over 90%, of the Democratic Party’s support comes from the morally base (white liberals), the dependent, Hispanics, and blacks. Look at the current state of Hollywood, Europe, Latin America, and Africa and you will see where the Democratic Party is taking America.
Headline number two: “Chinese media slams Romney as convention begins.” 

There is, of course, the Marxist element that also loves Obama. It isn’t small in the United States. For all its “openness,” the leadership of China is still in the hands of the Communist Party, which is the greatest enemy of freedom the world has ever seen. So any condemnation of Mitt Romney by the state-controlled Chinese media is as good an endorsement as any condemnation of Mitt Romney by the Obama-controlled American media.
And this third headline caused me to laugh. I don’t know why, it’s not necessarily funny, it’s just so….characteristic, so typical…of the kind of human being Barack Obama is. I am almost convinced (I don’t like to read anybody’s heart) that Obama hates America, so anything to do with honoring those who defend and protect the United States has to be anathema and repulsive to him. Anyway,
Headline number three: “Obama Honors Fallen SEALs By Sending Parents Form Letter Signed By Electric Pen...”
What an insult. Men who die protecting the principles that allowed him to become President of the United States, and Obama can’t do more than send them a form letter which he won’t even sign. But then, he’s too busy raising money and trying to retain power to give a second thought to the people he is supposed to govern.
On August 11, 2010, George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, went personally to the Dallas-Fort Worth airport to greet 150 Iraqi/Afghanistan returning war veterans. But then, George Bush is a great American.
And, here is an interesting little tidbit from Walter Williams’ most recent column. Obama and the Democrats are constantly calling out for the rich to pay their “fair share” of taxes, but we are never told what that “fair share” is. It would be 100% if Obama spoke the truth. But, the question is, how much are “the rich” paying in taxes? Williams:
“According to IRS 2007 data, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.”
Dr. Williams goes on to point out what is well-known: currently, 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax at all. Why should they be interested in an income tax cut, since they aren’t paying any taxes to begin with? And, indeed, a “tax cut” might scare them, because it might mean a cut in government revenue, which might mean a cut in their welfare check, which might mean—God forbid!—they would have to go out and work for a living. Not all 47% of these people are bums, of course…but a lot of them are. And guess whom they will vote for? “Yeah, take more from the rich…and give it to me!” It’s exactly what Barack Obama wants to do.

These Are Obama's People

Michelle Williams, New Black Panthers chief of staff to the Republican National Convention:  "Our Feet Will Be On Your Motherf***ing Necks."

Did you ever hear anybody in the Tea Party talk like that?

Make no mistake about it, folks, the left WILL have violence.  When they need it, and when they can get away with it, they...will...have...violence!

The Awakening

             A lot of people are finally waking up to what modern liberalism and its subjective, atheistic morality is all about.  The question is, is it too late, and it almost certainly is.

             America was built by decent people—“Decent America,” I will call them.  These people were—are--honest, hard-working, moral, ethical people.  They have a conscience.  They aren’t perfect, of course, but they try to live good, clean, wholesome lives, with a sense of integrity, propriety, politeness, and honor.  That is obviously the kind of people a country wants.  But these folks also tend to be a little naïve.  It is hard for them to think in a different way, and it is especially hard for them to realize that there are people who do NOT think that way, that there literally exists humans who are totally amoral, with no sense of decency, fairness, or uprightness—people who have no virtue, no ethics, no conscience at all.  The “decent” mind rebels against thinking that way about others; there is just something in their mind that repudiates the idea that someone would deliberately, premeditatively lie—or worse--just for personal gain.  We know it happens; the history of liberalism, the left, in the 20th century is too close in time—the Nazis, the communists, the atheistic horrors that slaughtered dozens of millions of innocent human beings.  And history is full of such stories.  We know, intellectually, that to be the case, though our minds still have difficulty grasping the horror, the reality that humans could actually behave this way.

             But America is different, isn’t it?  Surely no one in America could think in such a fashion…

             The Awakening may be occurring.  Yes, it can happen in America because the exact same moral system--atheistic subjectivism—that actuated Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al—underlies the American left, too.  And while the Democrats in America haven’t started killing people yet (that we know of), character assassination and “the end justifies the means” philosophy is certainly increasingly evident in their actions.  That has recently been evidenced in two major events.

             Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, was lying when he said somebody from Bain Capital called him and told him Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes in 10 years.  Reid was lying, he knows he was lying, and everybody else (well, everybody but a liberal robot) knows he was lying, too.  “Decent America” asks, how can any virtuous, honorable human, with a conscience, do that?  A man who is supposed to be a leader in the country.  It doesn’t compute, but, the truth of the matter is, Reid has no conscience, he has no virtue, no honor—atheistic ethics teaches he should only have those qualities when necessary to accomplish his goals!  Then comes the utterly ridiculous SuperPAC ad about Romney killing some woman with cancer.  Even much of the liberal media chuckled at that one and exposed its utter falsehood.  But, interestingly, the President never repudiated that ad—never.  He said he didn’t authorize it, but he never did what he should have done and publicly announce that such an accusation was despicable, dishonest, and he would have no part in this kind of a deceitful campaign.  Obama never did that—and that speaks volumes about the kind of person Barack Obama is.  He, too, has no conscience, no virtue, no decency.  For purely political, personal reasons, he is taking a calculated risk here—that there are more stupid people in America who will believe these utterly contemptible lies than there are decent people who are revolted by them.  And he's probably right.  November will decide that.  The fact that it is even an issue demonstrates how far America has sunk into an immoral cesspool--that politicians would actually, deliberately try to appeal to such people.  But it's all about votes.  Winning at any cost.  That’s all that matters to Obama and the left.  The end justifies the means.

I say, “the end justifies the means” because that is exactly what they believe.  They will be “decent” when they can, because they want to fool Decent America into voting for them, if possible.  But, if danger threatens, if they see the possibility of defeat lurking, then they’ll do whatever is necessary to crush—and I mean crush--their opponents to secure victory.  You see, recently, Obama has been in some trouble politically.  The country is getting worse off and anybody with a brain can see it.  His policies have not succeeded in making the country better—they can’t, as I’ve pointed out before on this blog.  And so, there has been a lot concern on the left that he actually might not win a second term.  Liberals, right now, have the best man they have ever had in the Presidency.  Bill Clinton was ok, but he’s not near the radical that Obama is.  The left simply must have Obama re-elected; since they have no God, no heaven to look forward to, then he is their Messiah, he will bring Utopia to them—if only the brainless, hick conservatives would shut up and get out of the way, quit hindering the Messiah in his goal of establishing a “progressive” heaven on earth.  And so, with Obama reeling, anything goes—the vicious, lying attacks on Mitt Romney are only symbolic of the kind of people these liberals are.  Again, if we look at the 20th century (actually, one can trace the roots back to the French Revolution of the 1790s and its infamous guillotine), we can see the ultimate horrors of secular, leftist morality.  The left in America hasn’t been able to kill people yet—Americans can own guns, of course, and shoot back (Stalin said about his sheep, “We don’t let them have ideas.  Why would we let them have guns?”).  And again, Decent America—any decent mind—simply rebels against the idea, is horrified by the thought—“no, it couldn’t happen in America.  As immoral as Barack Obama is, he would never start killing people…”  I hope not, but I know history, I know atheistic morality, and it’s there in history—recent history—for anybody to see.  As Sartre, Dostoevsky, and others have noted, “if there is no God, then everything is permitted.”  Harry Reid, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic Party have absolutely no decency or conscience at all.  They will do whatever it takes to win because, to them, life is not about getting to heaven; the only heaven there will ever be is the one we create on earth.  And they know how to do it!   And it’s only George Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Republicans, and backwoods Southern hayseeds that are preventing it from happening.

Of course, it’s only fair to point out, that, to a limited degree—or maybe not—the tactics being used by Obama, Reid, et al, against Romney are the same tactics he used against Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum in order to secure the Republican nomination in the first place.  Just like Obama is doing now, Romney gambled.  He surmised that, once he won the nomination, those people who were appalled by his slanderous attacks on Gingrich, et al, would line up behind him anyway, because the alternative—Obama—was horrifyingly worse.  But Romney is in a quandary now.  If he plays the same kind of despicable game that Obama is playing, and starts throwing mud and slime, he risks losing the Decent America vote; they’ll just stay home, being utterly disgusted at both candidates.  And, of course, if Decent America doesn’t vote, Romney hasn’t got a prayer of winning, because Obama has the stupid-immoral vote wrapped up.  Romney must stay above the fray or he risks losing his base.  But because Romney, at one point, was willing to use the mud-slinging tactics, we do get an exposure of his character, hypocritical at best.  What do we want in the Presidency—a hypocritical Mormon or a lying atheist?  Not much of a choice, frankly, though it would be impossible for the Republicans to find a candidate worse than Obama.  Romney needs to win, but only because the alternative is too terrifying to contemplate.

But what this shows, as much as anything else, is the wisdom of the American Founding Fathers.  They didn’t trust any politician and never intended for any human being to have the kind of power and control American politicians now have.   We have, as always, ignored history and its wisdom, and we will be destroyed because of it.

Many in Decent America might finally be waking up to what liberalism, atheistic subjectivism, and the intellectual leadership in the Democratic Party really are—a movement and people with no honor, no virtue, no conscience.  I only shake my head in frustration that it is taking so long for so many to see it.  The Bible, as always, is spot on, telling us that there are people who are “past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (Ephesians 4:19), who consciences have been “seared with a hot iron” (I Timothy 4:2).  In a way, if one can look at it from a God’s-eye view, it is fascinating to watch history lessons and Biblical truth being—again—so accurately played out.  It’s just a shame that so many human beings will—again—have to suffer because of it.  But, we mock God at our own peril.

Romney's VP

             Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan for VP is a good one, maybe the best choice of all.  Ryan is young, smart, and conservative.  He made mincemeat of Obama’s rather outrageous claim that Obamacare wouldn’t add to the deficit.  Romney is/was a good businessman, and Ryan is probably the best budget-brain on Capitol Hill.  Together, they would most likely do a pretty good job in getting some kind of handle on the government economic disaster.  Perhaps Ryan’s only problem is he is so smart that the, um, economically unenlightened people of America—their name is Legion, of course—will never understand his explanations.  That could hurt in the upcoming campaign.  But the Romney-Ryan ticket is a solid one, from an economic standpoint, light-years ahead of Obama-Biden, of whom it would be hard to find two men less qualified.

              The major hitch, though, is that America’s principal problem is not economic, it’s moral.  The moral degradation underpins the economic chaos, and until there is a serious character transformation in the American people, there will never be any real progress towards a better nation.  It doesn’t matter what kind of government a country has; if the country is full of sorry people, it’s going to be a sorry country, and America, right now, is a sorry country or it never would have elected Barack Obama in the first place (not to mention Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, etc.).   I don’t know what anybody can do to improve American character.  That has to come from within the people and that doesn’t appear very imminent.

              We will find out, immediately, if Paul Ryan is considered a good choice or not.  The "mainstream media" will tell us by how severerly they rip into him.

The Queer Marriage Thing

Kudos to the people who supported traditional marriage by going to Chick-Fill-A yesterday.  The queer marriage debate is just further evidence of the moral degeneration of the United States, but frankly, it's not that big of a deal, in my mind.  Of course people of the same sex can't get "married."  God created marriage and He alone can define what it is.  But, keep in mind, that, according to Jesus in Matthew 19:9, anyone who divorces his/her mate, except for fornication, and marries again, is committing adultery.  So, in God's eyes, those people aren't truly "married", either, they are living in adultery.  Given feminism and the destruction of marriage and the family in America today, how many millions of people does that encompass?  Adultery is just as soul-damning as homosexuality is, so the queers haven't got a monopoly on trying to re-define marriage and have society accept something that God rejects.

There seems to be some concern in the major media--and joy among conservatives--about President Obama's re-election chances.  I don't see it.  To me, unless something really catastrophic happens, it's almost a slam-dunk that he's going to win.  According to nearly every poll, he has way over 200 electoral votes pretty well sewn up; Rasmussen's projection has him at 247 electoral votes, and Romney with 191.  Obama, of course, will win every state in the decadent North, as well as the left coast--California and New York alone give him 84 electoral votes.  Given the current situation, he only needs less than 50 more electoral votes (23 if Rasmussen is accurate).  There are a few "toss-up" states--CO, VA, NC, OH, FL, WI, and IA; if he wins Florida, he wins the election.  A combination of 2 or 3 of the others would also put him over the top.  It looks almost like a done deal to me.  Get ready for 4 more years of Obama.  America will never recover from that, but then, America is already too far gone or the country never would have elected him (or Bill Clinton) in the first place.

Mitt Romney inspires nobody.  The only thing he has going for him is he isn't Barack Obama.  But he can't out-promise Obama, and with almost half the country on government support now, Obama and the Democrats will win.  They won't do so well in a lot of local elections because, actually, there are more "red" states than "blue" states.  But the population is greater in the "blue" states, so that carries the national election. 

Here's the link to Rasmussen's projection, if you want to read it and weep:

As I write this, the Texas Rangers are getting slaughtered again by the Los Angeles Angels--the third straight night.  At the moment, the Rangers are in first place, but I don't think that's going to be the case much longer.  As Texas is again finding out, pitching wins championships, and the Angels have the better of that.  The Astros, of course, are the dis-astros; they have one of the worst teams in major league history.  But they are trying to rebuild, so they have traded away nearly all of their major-league caliber players to stock their minor league system.  Right now, they are basically fielding a AA-AAA team, and it's pretty obvious that there is a major gap between major and minor leagues.  Next year, when they enter the American League, it won't be any better.  It's a long haul for the Astros.

The country of India lost power to about 670 million of its citizens this week--that is one-tenth of the world's population.  More socialism, folks?

********** A little later in the day.....
I'm going to have to eat a little crow here.  Regarding the Rangers-Angels baseball game mentioned above, Texas made a remarkable comeback--two of them, actually--and won the game, 11-10, in 10 innings.  Still, having to score 11 runs to win is not a good omen.  They've got a great team and might make it back to the World Series, but my guess is they won't.

And, regarding guessing, nobody knows whom Mitt Romney will choose for his Vice-Presidential running mate.  Condi Rice and Marco Rubio are the glamor picks, but I'm going to guess he'll pick Rob Portman of Ohio.  Ohio is one of those "swing states" with quite a few electoral votes that Romney needs.  Of course, he needs Florida, too, and that's where Rubio is from, but to avoid a lot of distraction about Rubio's background and experience, Romney needs to make a "safe" pick, and one that gives him a good chance to win an important state.  The Democratic propaganda wing, a.k.a, the "mainstream media," are obviously going to do everything they can to distract the election away from the incredibly incompetent and failed administration of Barack Obama.  Romney doesn't need those distractions, so I think he would be wise to go with a solid, if unspectacular, pick.  I don't know much about Portman, but from what little I've read, he seems to be a good man.

Obama vs. Lincoln

I've never especially been an Abraham Lincon fan, but he did have a lot of wisdom in his head and he spoke a lot of truth.

Now, Barack Obama.....well, let's just consider the following:

Obama:  "If you've got a business, you -- you didn't build that!  Somebody else made that happen."

Lincoln:  "That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence, is just encouragement to industry and enterprise."

What Barack Obama is, and what the Democratic Party has become, is one of the saddest things in human history.  The United States, never a perfect country, of course, began with great principles, a shining light, a gleaming hope for mankind.  The restoration of New Testament Christianity arose from the ground planted by the men who founded America.  Countless millions came to America to be what they could be, not what "somebody else made...happen."  That is the very thing they fled from in the first place!

Barack Obama and the Democrats are doing everything they can to destroy that.  And they are having an untold amount of success in doing so.

Baseball Trivia Question

The baseball All-Star game is tonight (well, Tuesday night in America), and in keeping with that spirit.  I have a trivia question, the answer of which will probably surprise a lot of people.

Who holds the American League record for most shutouts in a season by a left-handed pitcher (9)?  (This man also led the league in ERA in 1916 and for pitching the longest shutout, 14 innings, in World Series history.)

The answer?..........Well, I'll give it to you in Chinese first, and then tomorrow I will give it to you in English:  贝比鲁斯

If you can't wait till tomorrow to know the answer, copy and paste that Chinese into an online translator.

The answer to the trivia question is........Babe Ruth.  A lot of people forget that, before he became perhaps the greatest hitter in the history of baseball, he was one of the greatest pitchers, including holding the records mentioned above (he won almost 100 games as a pitcher before he became a regular player and had a lifetime ERA of 2.28, which is also one of the lowest in the history of the game).  He was almost exclusively a pitcher his first five years in the baseball (1914-18).  Over his entire career, he averaged 46 homeruns per 162 games.  Given that ratio, if he had been exclusively a hitter from 1914-18, he would have ended up with over 900 homeruns in his career (eat that Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron).  He had a CAREER slugging percentage of .690 (total bases divided by at bats), a figure that Willy Mays, Hank Aaron, and Joe Dimaggio never reached even one time in their careers.  Babe also had a lifetime OPS (on-base plus slugging percentage) of 1.164--that's for his entire career.  Again, Aaron, Mays, and Dimaggio never got that high in any single season. 

Incidentally, the Babe's debut in baseball was on July 11, 1914, 98 years ago today.  Mom, that was....a few years...before you were born....

The National League won the All-Star Game, 8-0, which means they will get home field advantage again in the World Series this year.  Bud Selig, in all his idiotic glory, may have cost the Rangers another championship...

According to the United States Government....

....people who love freedom are terrorists.

The Department of Homeland Security (perhaps George W. Bush's biggest mistake) recently released a study which defined the following people as terrorists (based upon Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, a 2011 study by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, whoever they are...).  Anyway, these frightening folks are "terrorists": 

--Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;
--Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;
--People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);
--Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;
--Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;
--Americans who are opposed to killing unborn babies.
Why should anybody be surprised that government thinks that people who believe in freedom are "terrorists"?   Government, intrinsically, is opposed to freedom.  The very purpose of government is to limit freedom.  That's what laws do--limit freedom.  In some cases, that is a good thing, of course.  We don't murderers having the "freedom" to murder.  But, even with that, the laws against murder limit the murderer's freedom to murder!  Every law passed by government, in some way, limits freedom.  Again, in many instances, that's what needs to be done.  But giving government the power to pass laws that restrict freedom makes government very, very dangerous to individual liberty.  Our Founding Fathers knew that, which is why they wrote a document (the Constitution) which specified exactly what the federal government can and cannot do.  They feared government and knew that it was the greatest enemy of individual liberty.  Unfortunately, thanks to Abraham Lincoln and a few others of his ilk, it didn't work (read my recent "Village Idiot" post for further explanation of this). 
The point is, it is in government's interest not to let freedom flourish.  If I'm government, I want power, I want to limit freedom.  That's good for me.  But bad for the people's liberty.  The more government, the less liberty for the people; the more liberty for the people, the less government control.  This isn't rocket science; it's common sense, and even more, it's history. 
So, how can it be any surprise that the United States federal government writes a document which defines people who believe in "individual liberty" and who are "suspicious of centralized federal authority" as "terrorists"?  Hahaha.  Are the American people ever going to wake up (no, they aren't) and realize that Washington, D.C., is a classic historical case of governmental power, and that it is the very thing the men who founded America warned about and tried to prevent? 
And rebelled against.
Thomas Jefferson, where are you when we need you so badly?
One more thought along this line; I've made it before on this blog, but I'll include it here for any new readers.  Regarding liberty:  the more that humans control themselves, the less government they need.  If people would conscientiously live according the teachings of Jesus Christ, we wouldn't need government (or very little).  As James Madison said, "if all men were angels, we wouldn't need government."  But this is the major reason why liberals, "progressives", hate religion.  Liberals, "progressives", believe in government as the solution to man's problems (with themselves in control of the government, of course).  The more religious, i.e., "self-governing" people are, the less government they need.  That is, they don't need liberals.  Thus, it has been a major goal of liberalism to destroy Christianity in America.  And in direct proportion to the success they have had, we have seen government grow in the United States.  Remember the Benjamin Franklin quote I posted a few weeks ago:  "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."  Do you think liberals don't know that?  Well, the "intellectuals" do, and that's why they are so vicious in their attacks on Christianity and in their attempts to silence those who truly exalt the teachings of Jesus.  Liberal, I don't need you.  I have a higher Master than you, one a whole lot smarter and wiser, whose ethical standards put yours to shame, and, if they were applied properly, would solve every, single solitary problem America has.  Without you, liberal.  But I know that's why you hate God and Christianity.  Well, there's one more reason.... 

Sometimes words have to be defined to be understood.  "Freedom" is one of those.  To the men who founded America, "freedom" meant the absence of governmental control over the people.  Moral law (God's) does exist, but people should freely choose to obey that law, for the betterment of themselves and respect for other people's rights.  But that's not what the modern liberal means by freedom.  To him, "freedom" means "sex."  That is the only thing liberals don't want government to control--people's right to have as much sex as they want, with any adult they want, and without having any responsibility or consequences.  And if an accident DOES happen (a baby conceived), somebody else's freedom should be limited (taxes) in order to pay to get rid of it.  Otherwise, to the liberal, there is no such thing as freedom.  You have only one course of action--obey to what the liberal tells you to do.

Liberal=government=Department of Homeland Security=hatred of individual liberty...

The Village Idiot and the Village Genius

Here's a great quote from a recent article by Thomas Sowell:

"John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius." ("Judicial Betrayal," 7/3/12)

The last sentence bears repeating: "few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius." I have often said--even told my students--that the stupidest people in the world are so-called "intellectuals." Most of them have no common sense, they rarely live in the real world where they themselves must accept the responsibility and bear the consequences of their fallacies, and worse yet, too many of them don’t believe in God.  It hasn’t been the Gomer Pyles who have started wars and killed untold millions, but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and a whole host of such “intellectual” leftists who thought they had the genius to re-make the world according to their own vision (and, in their subjectivism, they never agreed on what that vision is), and, all the while, they completely ignored history and the moral and spiritual laws that the Creator handed man for his own good. 

That’s the quintessence of stupidity.  And barbarism.  And human tragedy.  And the reason why the United States, and most of the world, is in a mess right now.

I haven’t written on the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare because, to me, it was ho-hum.  How could anybody be surprised at the decision?  When was the last time the SCOTUS was right about any major decision?  Why, why, why do we expect “intellectuals” to do the right thing?  They rarely ever do.  So, of course, the Supreme Court got it wrong.  Ho-hum.

Overlooked in all of this, and a point I haven’t seen anybody talk about, is that nowhere in the Constitution does that document make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what is “constitutional” or not.  I know that, from very early in the history of the United States (actually from even before Marbury v. Madison), the Court has taken it upon itself to declares laws of Congress and/or the states unconstitutional, and it has been accepted practice ever since.  But, again, where does the Constitution give the Court that right?  That 9 (or 5) unelected, unaccountable scoundrels have the ultimate power to decide what is to be bound upon the rest of the people can hardly be considered in harmony with a republican form of government or the intentions of the Founders.  In that sense, Chief Justice Roberts was right—the legislature makes the laws, regardless of how stupid they might be.  The executive “executes” (enforces) the laws, and the judiciary is to apply the laws.  That’s by simple definition.  If Congress makes an unconstitutional law, technically, it’s up to Congress to repeal it.  If they don’t, the states have the right to nullify it (nobody can be forced to obey an illegal law), as a warning to the national legislature.  If Congress still doesn’t repeal it, and insists on continuing to enforce its unconstitutional (tyrannical) mandates, the states have the right to secede from the Union—that’s the ultimate Damocles’ sword the Founders put over the head of the national government to help keep it in check.  If Congress insists on going beyond the delegated powers given to it in the Constitution, then the states, who created that Congress in the first place, have the right to secede—Congress won’t have anybody to govern anymore!  The United States government exists by the “consent of the governed,” and if all, or part, of those “governed” no longer consent to that government, then they have the right to leave it and form their own.  (Abraham Lincoln concurred in that view, which was, by far, the majority opinion of the Founders of the country.  It had to be since that is exactly what they did to England!)  Otherwise, those people are no longer free, but enslaved.  That’s the way the country was founded and intended.  The Southern states tried to make it work.  They failed.  Now, the federal government defines its own powers, so it is hardly surprising that there are virtually no limitations on what it can do (keep in mind that the SCOTUS is a part of the federal government, thus a major part in allowing Washington, D.C., to determine its own dominion).  Article One, Section 8, of the Constitution means nothing anymore because it can mean everything.  That is hardly what the men who founded the country had in mind.

Jefferson, et al, knew exactly what they were doing, and it was the most brilliant governmental construction the human mind has yet conceived.  The only thing is, it didn’t work.  And it didn’t work because of the very thing those men feared and tried to prevent—the undying, unquenchable thirst that humans—especially so-called “intellectuals”—have for power.  It is an intoxicant that has killed more of God’s creatures than any other vice in history.  And it is the intoxicant that is the main motivation of Barack Obama and the “progressives” whose one obsession is to control the United States of America and to create a utopian vision that only they can see.  That scares me to death.  Because other such “progressive” visionaries have been named…Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…

History teaches that man has been plenty barbaric even when he acknowledges there is a God in heaven.  Man, without God, has absolutely no boundaries and no controls—and no reason to have any.  And so much the worse for the countless, nameless millions who have lived—and brutally died—under such a system. 

Give me Gomer Pyle any day of the week.