I wrote in a post yesterday, “In The Year 3010”, that it would largely be economics that destroyed the United States. There is no question that this country, given the wastefulness of Congress and its contempt for intelligent economic laws, is headed for a day of reckoning that will not be pretty. One cannot live forever on a credit card; that is as true for a country as for an individual. The welfare policies which were mostly put in place under the administrations of Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and now Barack Obama are simply unsustainable. Not even the American economic machine, the greatest the world has ever seen, can prop up these redistributionist policies forever.
But, as vital as economics are, that’s not what is going to sink this country. America will fall because its foundation is being destroyed. Every successful society in history has been built upon some strong foundation—a culture, customs, traditions that are agreed upon by the people of that society, that unite those people, that indeed make them a people in that society, a cohesive whole that distinguishes them from every other civilization in history. Greece was not Rome was not China was not Japan was not native America. And what made those communities and nations unique were those values and norms that everyone within that community accepted—a foundation that, when it crumbled and cracked, led to disintegration. When the Sophist philosophers attacked the gods and traditions of Athenian democracy, traditions that had been the foundation of Athenian society and bound the city’s people together for generations, Athens slipped from its golden age to being a third-rate Greek city-state, indeed, easily conquered (as was all of Greece) by Philip of Macedon and his more famous son, Alexander. Rome was not built in a day, but underlying that growth was a cornerstone of stoic virtue and family strength, both of which were deserted in the later empire; thus, Rome became an easy victim for the barbarian hordes who conquered her. No, the Greeks and the Romans were far from perfect. My point here is that “Greece” and “Rome” meant something—cultures, traditions, customs, mores, ideas that were agreed upon with near universality by their peoples. A foundation that made Rome and Greece what they were. And when that foundation was attacked and destroyed, down came those great ancient powers.
The United States of America was built on the foundation of Christian principles; a single quote to confirm this will suffice for this article. Alexis de Tocqueville, the brilliant Frenchmen who visited the United States in the 1830s, wrote, “I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion—for who can know the human heart?—but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable for the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion…belongs to the whole rank of society.” Americans became and were Americans because of common values, customs, beliefs, mores, and these were largely founded upon the Christian religion. “E pluribus unum”—out of many, one. If a country expects to survive, its people must be united by…something. And the more that unites them, the stronger they will be and the longer they will exist. The more that divides them, the less the chance for long-term stability and survival. “Diversity”—division—has never led to successful national continuance. Indeed, where found, it has nearly always been a factor in society disintegration. It is no accident the among the longest lasting nations/empires in history are the Egyptians, Chinese, and Japanese—perhaps the most homogeneous states that ever existed.
The Christian foundations of this society have been under attack by the “intelligentsia,” the “progressive” left for at least a generation now; the 1960s is largely when it began. And the United States has been fracturing ever since. The leftist intellectual is doing everything he can to undermine belief in Christianity, much like the Sophists of ancient Greece seemed determined to destroy faith in their gods. The problem is, if you destroy the foundation, you better replace it with something else very quickly or the whole structure will fatally collapse. Destroy the foundations of a building, and what will happen to that building?
It’s easy to tear down; it’s hard to build. “Progressives” have offered us nothing as a substitute foundation for the Christianity they abhor and want to obliterate. Ethical relativism, the “morality” of the modern left, is no foundation; it’s nothing but a shifting sand of change and variation upon which nothing can be built. How can a society have unity under a doctrine of “every man does that which is right in his own eyes”? Yes, the “progressive” would love for us to listen to him, to let him guide and direct us, to give him control over our lives and moral code, but I’m sorry, buddy, why should I listen to you? What makes your moral code any better than mine? By definition, there is nothing permanent about relativism, and that’s all the modern liberal has to offer. Like a disease, they slowly destroy, and they are indeed destroying, and the economic malaise in our country is only one symptom—a country where people think they are “entitled” to other people’s money, and politicians who, with no qualms of conscience at all, steal through taxation the hard-earned wealth of some to “share” it with others…and the fact that so many people never think anything of it or consider it in the least bit improper…this is a lucid illustration of the success liberalism has had in destroying the Christian foundation of this nation. For, while Christianity certainly teaches concern for and charity to the poor, it does not teach that it is to be done through governmental force. That’s secular intellectual doctrine, Marx’s, Obama’s, not Christ’s.
But this country today is horribly, horribly divided. And it is so because of the left’s unrelenting attacks on Christianity and the foundation principles of this country. There are an awful lot of people who still believe in the latter and they are fighting back. But, “every city or house divided against itself will not stand” (Matthew 12:25).
And, indeed, “if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3).
I do not have the answer to that question. For if “progressivism” offers redistribution of wealth, victimhood, and the pleasures of a debauchery with no consequences, while Christianity means hard work, personal responsibility, and a self-controlled morality that understands that actions have consequences….who do you think is going to win?
But which one built the country? And which one is destroying it?
In The Year 3010
If the world lasts another 1,000 years, no doubt historians will be writing about the events of the past. In this post I’m going to jump ahead to the year 3010 and write a few things about the United States of America that historians will be cogitating over and hopefully learning from. Of course, since none of us will be alive 1,000 years from now, there’s no way to know if my prognostications will be correct. But perhaps this blog will still be around in cyberspace and historians can determine how accurate I’ve been
First of all, there will be no United States of America in 3010. There might not be one in 2110. A United States of North America is highly possible, and since the national language will be Spanish, the capital of the country will be Mexico City—as far away as possible from any gringos who might still be around, most of whom will probably be speaking French. China and Japan will still be countries 1,000 years from now because the Oriental people know how to build a society that lasts. Russia will probably still exist, simply because it’s too big for anybody to conquer. After World War VI, Europe will be more of a mud hole than it is today, and the experiments in nationalism in Africa will most likely fail and that continent will remain embroiled in tribalism and backwardness. The Middle East is not going to produce a world power because Islam is too divided. But frankly, I don’t really care about those latter regions. This post is supposed to be about the long-gone United States.
What I really want to do here is give the 3010 historians’ ranking of the worst Presidents the country ever had, those who played the biggest role in the disintegration and destruction of the United States. It’s fairly evident today (2010) that economics is what is going to sink this nation, so, in 3010, who will historians view as the greatest Presidential villains in America’s past?
1. The worst President will be Abraham Lincoln. He is the man who changed this country from what the Founding Fathers intended it to be. The United States was established as just that—united states, i.e, the states had sovereignty over the federal government except for the very few matters listed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment clearly establishes state/people sovereignty. Lincoln destroyed that. Folks, the Civil War (or, more appropriately, The War for Southern Independence) was not fought over slavery; it was fought over a state’s right to secede from the Union. The Southern states believed, with imminent justification, that the federal government was usurping powers that, Constitutionally, belonged to the states. Given that Lincoln obviously intended to continue that trend, they seceded in order to form their own government. The South wasn’t trying to take over the national government; they were trying to leave it. The war was a battle of states’ rights vs. national government sovereignty. It is plain, by looking at the country today, which side won that war. The United States federal government can trump the states in anything the latter tries to do, and of course, the vast majority of what the federals do is wholly unconstitutional. The just-passed “health care bill” is a case in point. I defy anybody to show me anywhere in the Constitution where the national government is given the right to dictate American health care policy. But Congress doesn’t care in the least what the Constitution says, and most Americans don’t know what it says. So the feds can get away with whatever they want to. Lincoln began that process (initiated actually by Alexander Hamilton, but he was never President) by starting a war to prevent states from being sovereign in their governments. We see the fruits today.
Historians in 3010 will see slavery as a very small element in the Civil War; the institution was dying anyway, and it would have been abolished soon in the South, by Southerners, because it was simply not economically viable in an age of industrial revolution. Historians will look at what the Founders intended this country to be and see that it was the war of 1861-65 that changed it, and that it was the South who was trying to preserve it. And that region of the country was forced into a government they did not want to be in. New Englander Lysander Spooner, who was rabidly anti-slavery, still viciously castigated Lincoln for the war. Why, Spooner asked, free 4 million people only to enslave 9 million others? And Southerners being forced to support a government they did not believe in is not exactly a pristine definition of “freedom.” How many Americans today are being forced to support a health care law that they vehemently oppose? Freedom, anyone?
2. The second worst president will be Franklin Roosevelt. He started the modern welfare state, mainly with the Ponzi scheme called “Social Security”. Here we see the federal government taking greater control over the lives of people, robbing Americans of freedom, and beginning to send the country swirling into an economic pit that it will never escape.
3. Lyndon Johnson, the third worst president, only exacerbated what FDR did. The “Great Society,” the “war on poverty” accomplished, over the long haul, nothing but deepening the debt of the country, putting the United States at the mercy of foreigners who controlled that debt. Being at somebody else’s mercy is not a good way to produce long-term stability. The “Great Society” also created more dependent people, people who would not take care of themselves and thus were parasites off the productive sectors of society. As the following decades progressed, more and more dependents were created, draining more and more needed job-creating capital, furthering weakening the economic base of the country. The productive sectors can support the non-productive sectors for only so long and for only so much money. Johnson’s expansive welfare state simply hurried this process along.
4. The fourth worst president will be our current one, Barack Obama, who is simply following in the steps of FDR and LBJ. The expanded governmental role in one-sixth of the American economy might be the final straw that, economically, razes this country. For Obama to flat out lie—and there is no other word for it, the man is lying and knows he is doing so—by saying that “Obamacare” will actually cut the federal deficit is an insult to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. LBJ said that Medicare wouldn’t cost very much, either. Obama has other plans to economically disassemble the United States, which will demand an ever-greater burden on producers and eventually totally bankrupt the nation. An attempt to patch up the problem with a “North American Union” is likely, and will probably have as much success as the floundering European Union.
Regarding the United States of America, historians in 3010 will sigh over a noble experiment in human freedom which sadly went amiss for the very reasons most other such experiments have failed: the love that men have for power and control over others. A 250-300 year existence for the United States is, historically, not really a very long life; 1,000 years from now, it will seem fairly petty. Hopefully, people in 3010 can look back at our disastrous mistakes and learn from them. But frankly, I doubt they will, for if history teaches anything, it teaches that men learn nothing from history.
First of all, there will be no United States of America in 3010. There might not be one in 2110. A United States of North America is highly possible, and since the national language will be Spanish, the capital of the country will be Mexico City—as far away as possible from any gringos who might still be around, most of whom will probably be speaking French. China and Japan will still be countries 1,000 years from now because the Oriental people know how to build a society that lasts. Russia will probably still exist, simply because it’s too big for anybody to conquer. After World War VI, Europe will be more of a mud hole than it is today, and the experiments in nationalism in Africa will most likely fail and that continent will remain embroiled in tribalism and backwardness. The Middle East is not going to produce a world power because Islam is too divided. But frankly, I don’t really care about those latter regions. This post is supposed to be about the long-gone United States.
What I really want to do here is give the 3010 historians’ ranking of the worst Presidents the country ever had, those who played the biggest role in the disintegration and destruction of the United States. It’s fairly evident today (2010) that economics is what is going to sink this nation, so, in 3010, who will historians view as the greatest Presidential villains in America’s past?
1. The worst President will be Abraham Lincoln. He is the man who changed this country from what the Founding Fathers intended it to be. The United States was established as just that—united states, i.e, the states had sovereignty over the federal government except for the very few matters listed in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment clearly establishes state/people sovereignty. Lincoln destroyed that. Folks, the Civil War (or, more appropriately, The War for Southern Independence) was not fought over slavery; it was fought over a state’s right to secede from the Union. The Southern states believed, with imminent justification, that the federal government was usurping powers that, Constitutionally, belonged to the states. Given that Lincoln obviously intended to continue that trend, they seceded in order to form their own government. The South wasn’t trying to take over the national government; they were trying to leave it. The war was a battle of states’ rights vs. national government sovereignty. It is plain, by looking at the country today, which side won that war. The United States federal government can trump the states in anything the latter tries to do, and of course, the vast majority of what the federals do is wholly unconstitutional. The just-passed “health care bill” is a case in point. I defy anybody to show me anywhere in the Constitution where the national government is given the right to dictate American health care policy. But Congress doesn’t care in the least what the Constitution says, and most Americans don’t know what it says. So the feds can get away with whatever they want to. Lincoln began that process (initiated actually by Alexander Hamilton, but he was never President) by starting a war to prevent states from being sovereign in their governments. We see the fruits today.
Historians in 3010 will see slavery as a very small element in the Civil War; the institution was dying anyway, and it would have been abolished soon in the South, by Southerners, because it was simply not economically viable in an age of industrial revolution. Historians will look at what the Founders intended this country to be and see that it was the war of 1861-65 that changed it, and that it was the South who was trying to preserve it. And that region of the country was forced into a government they did not want to be in. New Englander Lysander Spooner, who was rabidly anti-slavery, still viciously castigated Lincoln for the war. Why, Spooner asked, free 4 million people only to enslave 9 million others? And Southerners being forced to support a government they did not believe in is not exactly a pristine definition of “freedom.” How many Americans today are being forced to support a health care law that they vehemently oppose? Freedom, anyone?
2. The second worst president will be Franklin Roosevelt. He started the modern welfare state, mainly with the Ponzi scheme called “Social Security”. Here we see the federal government taking greater control over the lives of people, robbing Americans of freedom, and beginning to send the country swirling into an economic pit that it will never escape.
3. Lyndon Johnson, the third worst president, only exacerbated what FDR did. The “Great Society,” the “war on poverty” accomplished, over the long haul, nothing but deepening the debt of the country, putting the United States at the mercy of foreigners who controlled that debt. Being at somebody else’s mercy is not a good way to produce long-term stability. The “Great Society” also created more dependent people, people who would not take care of themselves and thus were parasites off the productive sectors of society. As the following decades progressed, more and more dependents were created, draining more and more needed job-creating capital, furthering weakening the economic base of the country. The productive sectors can support the non-productive sectors for only so long and for only so much money. Johnson’s expansive welfare state simply hurried this process along.
4. The fourth worst president will be our current one, Barack Obama, who is simply following in the steps of FDR and LBJ. The expanded governmental role in one-sixth of the American economy might be the final straw that, economically, razes this country. For Obama to flat out lie—and there is no other word for it, the man is lying and knows he is doing so—by saying that “Obamacare” will actually cut the federal deficit is an insult to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence. LBJ said that Medicare wouldn’t cost very much, either. Obama has other plans to economically disassemble the United States, which will demand an ever-greater burden on producers and eventually totally bankrupt the nation. An attempt to patch up the problem with a “North American Union” is likely, and will probably have as much success as the floundering European Union.
Regarding the United States of America, historians in 3010 will sigh over a noble experiment in human freedom which sadly went amiss for the very reasons most other such experiments have failed: the love that men have for power and control over others. A 250-300 year existence for the United States is, historically, not really a very long life; 1,000 years from now, it will seem fairly petty. Hopefully, people in 3010 can look back at our disastrous mistakes and learn from them. But frankly, I doubt they will, for if history teaches anything, it teaches that men learn nothing from history.
Here’s What We Have To Look Forward To
A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization. I personally am suspicious of these statistics because I don’t believe anything the U.N. puts out, but here they are anyway.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U. S.—65%
England—46%
Canada—42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U. S.—93%
England—15%
Canada—43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U. S.—90%
England—13%
Canada—43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U. S.—77%
England—40%
Canada—43%
Number of MRI scanners per million people:
U. S.—71
England—14
Canada—18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low incomes, who say they are in “excellent health”:
U. S.—12%
England—2%
Canada—6%
Thank you, Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reed for doing everything you can to destroy the finest medical care system in the world. But then, the American people elected you so we get what we ask for.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U. S.—65%
England—46%
Canada—42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U. S.—93%
England—15%
Canada—43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
U. S.—90%
England—13%
Canada—43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U. S.—77%
England—40%
Canada—43%
Number of MRI scanners per million people:
U. S.—71
England—14
Canada—18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low incomes, who say they are in “excellent health”:
U. S.—12%
England—2%
Canada—6%
Thank you, Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reed for doing everything you can to destroy the finest medical care system in the world. But then, the American people elected you so we get what we ask for.
9.7% Unemployment Rate
February's unemployment rate came out today and remained at its January level of 9.7%. It was interesting, and not surprising, how the media spun the news--"employers cut only 36,000 jobs." 36,000 people lose their jobs, and that's good news. Well, I guess it is, considering it was "better than the 50,000 cuts forecast by economists." Folks, let me put you in on a little secret--economists have absolutely no idea, none, month-to-month, how many people are going to be hired or laid off. It's a complete and total guess because no one can forecast what people will do of their own free choice. And if an employer hires or fires, he does it of his own will and not because an economist predicts it. The very fact that EVERY MONTH something "better than expected" or "worse than expected" is reported is full indication of that. Keep a watch out for those two phrases; you will literally see them each month. I know, because I look for them and chuckle. The news media has a macro for both. Case in point: the article I quote from above is entitled "Stocks Jump After Better-Than-Expected Jobs Report."
But, is this good news--a stable unemployment rate? Does it indicate, as the media has been trying to tell us for months, that the economy is getting better (if they keep reporting that, at some point they are going to be right). Well, perhaps. But do consider this as well--Congress hasn't done anything but argue for several months now; they haven't passed any legislation of note that would be intrusive upon the economic, investment sectors of society. Those who provide the jobs and investment are still skittish, believe me. Talk of higher taxes through health care reform, cap and trade, etc., are not encouragements to invest. The Obama administration simply has business worried; you don't go and borrow a lot of money to invest in your business if you don't know what the government is going to do, and if you fear that higher taxes and regulation will put a greater squeeze on your profits and income. As long as Congress is in gridlock--and will let the American people alone--we'll probably see some improvement in the economy. But not much, until Obama signals a pro-business, pro-investment direction, something he has done the exact opposite of so far in his administration.
But people have got to make a living and the layoff figures last month were...better than expected. Keep Congress gridlocked and that might...might...continue. Businesses still have to look at the long term and, again, Obama is giving them no encouragement in that direction.
But, is this good news--a stable unemployment rate? Does it indicate, as the media has been trying to tell us for months, that the economy is getting better (if they keep reporting that, at some point they are going to be right). Well, perhaps. But do consider this as well--Congress hasn't done anything but argue for several months now; they haven't passed any legislation of note that would be intrusive upon the economic, investment sectors of society. Those who provide the jobs and investment are still skittish, believe me. Talk of higher taxes through health care reform, cap and trade, etc., are not encouragements to invest. The Obama administration simply has business worried; you don't go and borrow a lot of money to invest in your business if you don't know what the government is going to do, and if you fear that higher taxes and regulation will put a greater squeeze on your profits and income. As long as Congress is in gridlock--and will let the American people alone--we'll probably see some improvement in the economy. But not much, until Obama signals a pro-business, pro-investment direction, something he has done the exact opposite of so far in his administration.
But people have got to make a living and the layoff figures last month were...better than expected. Keep Congress gridlocked and that might...might...continue. Businesses still have to look at the long term and, again, Obama is giving them no encouragement in that direction.
Arctic Ocean Warming
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,” according to a Commerce Department report published by the Washington Post.
Well, the evidence for global warming just keeps mounting, doesn't it.
Oh, wait a minute. Excuse me. The date of that published report by the Post was November 2, 1922.
Well, the evidence for global warming just keeps mounting, doesn't it.
Oh, wait a minute. Excuse me. The date of that published report by the Post was November 2, 1922.
Can We Bring This Guy to America?
From Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd:
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.
Quote:
"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It…
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians...
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian right-wing political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this; but once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.
If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.
Quote:
"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It…
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians...
This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.
We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!
Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian right-wing political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.
This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this; but once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.
If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
