As reported by the media, there was some rotten news on the economic front in the United States last week. Employers weren't hiring as many people "as expected," unemployment went up to 9.1%, the stock market has been tanking, housing is bad, etc. etc. etc. After a robust recovery, the economy seems to be heading for a "double dip" recession. Terrible, huh.
Let me tell you how to interpret all this.
1. The economy never was "recovering," at least not with the energy the "mainstream media" has been reporting. Keep in mind, they are unapologetic, devoted sycophants of Barack Obama, so they've tried to portray what has been, at best, a very, very weak recovery as solid economic growth. That makes Obama look good, of course, which is exactly--and all--they want.
2. But now, bad news. Frankly, the news wasn't as bad as all that, at least not given what the economy has actually been doing for the past two years. But--and this is crucial--by portraying the economic news as terrible, the media can then praise Obama to the hilt for any upcoming "good" reports (provided there are any). So, it's horrible now, the world is fixing to come to an end, and soon, if things get better, it will all be because of the genius of Barack Obama. This isn't fooling anybody except those who wish to be fooled.
3. Some have been saying that a bad economy is exactly what Obama wants, that he is, in effect, trying to destroy the American economic system. I can't read the man's mind or heart, but I do know he leans very strongly towards socialism. And socialism's number one enemy is capitalism. Capitalism means economic freedom; socialism means government control. Which one do you think Obama wants? So a failing American economy, blamed on "capitalism" (an absence thereof is the actual reason), can lead to exactly what Obama and his cronies want--more power in their own hands. I'm not sure the major media outlets are smart enough to catch on to this, but Obama doesn' t care about that. As long as they portray him as the best President we've ever had, he'll let them believe whatever they want.
Barack Obama has absolutely no clue how to build a strong economy. Well, maybe he does and just doesn't want it to happen. Because, again, it is freedom--capitalism--that creates economic growth and freedom is the antithesis of what the liberal elite desires. So pay no attention, dear reader, to what the "mainstream media" says. Always remember that they are nothing more than the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party.
There Will Be No Rapture!
I usually save matters of religious significance for my Bible blogs, but since Harold Camping's failed prediction of the coming of the rapture has been in the secular news, it is worth commenting on here. The tragic thing here is not that there wasn't any rapture. The Bible does not teach that doctrine; there will never be an event where only some people (believers) will disappear from the earth, leaving the rest to muddle through until the "Battle of Armageddon" and the subsequent 1,000 year (millennial) reign of Christ on earth. That is NOT going to happen. Much of this doctrine comes from a profound misunderstanding of the New Testament book of Revelation. I invite readers to study the materials presented in my "Book of Revelation" blog, which I believe gives an historical and Biblically-sound explanation of that book.
No, again, the tragic thing is not Camping's failed prophecy. The tragic thing is that it leaves Christianity (a very false form thereof) open to mockery and ridicule. The world doesn't distinguish true Christianity from counterfeits like Camping's. Skeptics will lump all "Christian" doctrines together and proclaim the whole religion false. Stephen Hawking, one of the leading atheistic scientists, who may have as many worshippers as Jehovah, has taken this opportunity to write an article about how there is no heaven. Camping did nothing but add fuel to that already flaming belief among the world's non-believers. It is incredibly frustrating to those who know what the Bible truly teaches and who knew very good and well that Camping's prediction was false.
This is not just a matter of differing "interpretations" of the Bible. The Bible has certainly been "interpreted" in countless ways, but all of them but one are wrong! That may sound elitist, but it's not--it's a matter of common sense. When God wrote the Bible, He had one meaning in mind, not 1,000; it is inherently impossible for the God of Truth to contradict Himself. Thus, there is only one true "interpretation" of Scripture. Men may misunderstand the Bible differently. But if they understand it, they will understand it alike because it means only one thing. And it is up to us to be humble and open minded enough to accept what God says, regardless of where it may lead us. And it won't lead us to a "rapture."
One also must feel some degree of sympathy--but not much--for Camping's followers. They put their faith in a man, not in God, and the man, not surprisingly, let them down. This is why I say our sympathy is limited. Camping's followers have Bibles. Let them study that, not a human's doctrine. If they had done so in the first place, they wouldn't have been swept away by this egregiously false prediction. Hopefully, many--including Camping himself--will have the wisdom and humility to come to a knowledge of the truth.
The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed coming back (Acts 1:11). We do not know when (Matt. 24:36), but when He does, "every eye will see Him" (Rev. 1:7), not just a few. All in the graves--good and bad--will hear Him and rise to whatever eternity awaits them (John 5:28-29). The righteous who are alive upon His return will ascend to meet Him in the air (I Thess. 4:17). This is not a difficult Biblical doctrine, but it often seems that the simplest are the easiest to pervert. The world will continue to mock, but there WILL BE a second coming of Christ. I don't know when that will be and nobody else does, either. So the only recourse is to always be ready.
Incidentally, the fact that false teachers exist in abundance is another evidence of the Bible's inspiration, for it has repeated announcements of their presence (I Tim. 4:1; II Tim. 4:2-3; I Peter 2:1-2; Jude 3). If we fall for their nonsense, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We can't even blame Stephen Hawking.
No, again, the tragic thing is not Camping's failed prophecy. The tragic thing is that it leaves Christianity (a very false form thereof) open to mockery and ridicule. The world doesn't distinguish true Christianity from counterfeits like Camping's. Skeptics will lump all "Christian" doctrines together and proclaim the whole religion false. Stephen Hawking, one of the leading atheistic scientists, who may have as many worshippers as Jehovah, has taken this opportunity to write an article about how there is no heaven. Camping did nothing but add fuel to that already flaming belief among the world's non-believers. It is incredibly frustrating to those who know what the Bible truly teaches and who knew very good and well that Camping's prediction was false.
This is not just a matter of differing "interpretations" of the Bible. The Bible has certainly been "interpreted" in countless ways, but all of them but one are wrong! That may sound elitist, but it's not--it's a matter of common sense. When God wrote the Bible, He had one meaning in mind, not 1,000; it is inherently impossible for the God of Truth to contradict Himself. Thus, there is only one true "interpretation" of Scripture. Men may misunderstand the Bible differently. But if they understand it, they will understand it alike because it means only one thing. And it is up to us to be humble and open minded enough to accept what God says, regardless of where it may lead us. And it won't lead us to a "rapture."
One also must feel some degree of sympathy--but not much--for Camping's followers. They put their faith in a man, not in God, and the man, not surprisingly, let them down. This is why I say our sympathy is limited. Camping's followers have Bibles. Let them study that, not a human's doctrine. If they had done so in the first place, they wouldn't have been swept away by this egregiously false prediction. Hopefully, many--including Camping himself--will have the wisdom and humility to come to a knowledge of the truth.
The Lord Jesus Christ is indeed coming back (Acts 1:11). We do not know when (Matt. 24:36), but when He does, "every eye will see Him" (Rev. 1:7), not just a few. All in the graves--good and bad--will hear Him and rise to whatever eternity awaits them (John 5:28-29). The righteous who are alive upon His return will ascend to meet Him in the air (I Thess. 4:17). This is not a difficult Biblical doctrine, but it often seems that the simplest are the easiest to pervert. The world will continue to mock, but there WILL BE a second coming of Christ. I don't know when that will be and nobody else does, either. So the only recourse is to always be ready.
Incidentally, the fact that false teachers exist in abundance is another evidence of the Bible's inspiration, for it has repeated announcements of their presence (I Tim. 4:1; II Tim. 4:2-3; I Peter 2:1-2; Jude 3). If we fall for their nonsense, we have no one to blame but ourselves. We can't even blame Stephen Hawking.
Bush vs. Obama
George W. Bush is so superior to Barack Obama as a human being (not to mention a President) that there's no comparison. Read the following to show the difference these two men.
Bush speech after capture of Saddam:
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.
Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan .
Bush speech after capture of Saddam:
The success of yesterday's mission is a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq. The operation was based on the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator's footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people. Their work continues, and so do the risks. Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate 'em.
Barack Obama speech after killing of bin Laden:
And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network. Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. I met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan .
Is Obama Unbeatable?
The propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, aka the "mainstream media," is pretty well announcing next year's election as already over, with President Obama a sure winner. A recent AP poll showed Obama's approval rating at 60%, which is utterly ridiculous. The fine line to that poll was that 46% of the people who were asked identified themselves as Democrats, while only 29% said they were Republicans. I wonder what Obama's approval rating would be if those numbers were switched. Somewhere near (or far below) the 48% that Rasmussen's poll (a professional poller) has him.
That's really irrelevant. The election isn't for another year and a half, which is an eternity in politics. Yet, the media is already suggesting a fait accompli, Obama is unbeatable. The idea is that if it's hopeless for the Republicans, the people who support that party will either stay home, or join the winning team. You can expect the media to hammer this theme (Obama is unbeatable) relentlessy and ruthlessly over the next 18 months in their desperate attempt to get him re-elected. As the Nazis taught us, repeat a lie often and loud enough and most people will begin to believe it.
The question is, is he unbeatable? No, of course not, but his defeat isn't assured, either, and it will not be too many years before candidates of Obama's ilk will virtually be unbeatable on the national stage. It is simply a matter of history, folks, and especially the history of democracies, where mediocrity eventually reigns. Empires grow and then they collapse--morally, socially, economically, and in other ways. Sometimes those empires disappear completely from existence (e.g., Assyria, Babylon), sometimes they simply degenerate into third rate insignificance, a shell of their former greatness (e.g., France, Great Britain). What it takes for a peoples to become great they must continue to do. When they stop doing it, they begin their inevitable decline and fall.
The United States started its serious decline in the 1960s, when it lost its moral compass and "intellectuals" began a serious attack on the traditions and unified beliefs upon which the country had been established and built. (Future historians might argue for an earlier beginning, and I'm tempted to.) The pre-60s America was an America of individualism, a morality solidly based on Judeo-Christian values, and an American exceptionalism that was unique, almost to world history. The country was far from perfect, of course, and made many mistakes in its history; imperfect, sinful human beings will always commit grievous errors. Still, there were enough of the qualities (frugality, morality, industry) to build and grow a mighty country. These are values which are rarely exalted today, and when people are not taught something, they will not know it. The last generation of "intellectuals" and politicians has been busy criticizing and undermining America's historical values and it has taken its toll.
More and more, an immoral, dependent, lazy populace has grown and replaced the stouter virtues of the past. Not every American has degenerated, of course; we speak of the decline of empires, and that implies gradualism, not immediacy. But Barack Obama and the Democratic Party has made its living over the last 50 years by appealing to that '60s generation of rising untraditional, unexceptional American ideals. More and more people reject the traditional and opt for the "progressive," which, of course, is not progressive at all, but the very opposite. Rather than individual virtue and industry--people taking care of themselves--there is a growing dependence upon government, something the Democratic Party exists for and without which, wouldn't exist any longer. Dependence means power for those who crave it, control over others. Vain, narcissistic politicians want that power, and a vain, narcisstic media wants to share it with them. Attack moral law, insist it doesn't exist, and people will, morally, fall into such a rank condition that there only hope is dependence, which is simply another word for slavery. Then, call such dependence "progressive"--lie like the Nazis--and people will be shamed if they don't go along with it. Who wants to be "unprogressive"? Hollywood, of course, pitches in with its ceaseless outpouring of immoral rot and attacks on the virtues of the past--virtues Hollywood portrays as the Southern "hick" and the bigoted clergyman. Folks, this is a classic, textbook example of decline and fall, and it won't be stopped.
Are there enough Americans left who believe in hard work and moral virtue to defeat Barack Obama? Yes, there are, but their numbers are decreasing and they will eventually be in the minority, if they aren't already. The left will cower them, probably violently as they always have, and the United States will slowly, but inevitably, descend into oblivion or, more likely, insignificance. A fractured, "multicultural" society, almost by definition, doesn't have the strength that comes from unity to ward off the rising, hungry mouths elsewhere that will do those things necessary to bring increase and success. Something must unite a people; what is it that unites America today besides geographical boundaries? The continued might and power of America is nowhere eternally decreed. Decline and fall can happen in the United States just as it has elsewhere. And that decline and fall is evident to those with the eyes to see. The election of people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, not to mention Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk, are full evidence of the gradual regression of a once-great country.
Our Founding Fathers were great historians who knew the lessons of the past. That's why they were able to establish a country on principles that made America great and have kept it so for over 200 years. But today we are living off the moral capital of those previous generations, and that moral capital is almost gone. Two quotes from Benjamin Franklin as I close: "When the people discover they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the doom of the Republic." Republics--especially democratic Republics--must have a moral, hard-working, economically independent people. Dependency and a republic are opposites. Franklin also said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." What better description is there of the decline of the United States?
That's really irrelevant. The election isn't for another year and a half, which is an eternity in politics. Yet, the media is already suggesting a fait accompli, Obama is unbeatable. The idea is that if it's hopeless for the Republicans, the people who support that party will either stay home, or join the winning team. You can expect the media to hammer this theme (Obama is unbeatable) relentlessy and ruthlessly over the next 18 months in their desperate attempt to get him re-elected. As the Nazis taught us, repeat a lie often and loud enough and most people will begin to believe it.
The question is, is he unbeatable? No, of course not, but his defeat isn't assured, either, and it will not be too many years before candidates of Obama's ilk will virtually be unbeatable on the national stage. It is simply a matter of history, folks, and especially the history of democracies, where mediocrity eventually reigns. Empires grow and then they collapse--morally, socially, economically, and in other ways. Sometimes those empires disappear completely from existence (e.g., Assyria, Babylon), sometimes they simply degenerate into third rate insignificance, a shell of their former greatness (e.g., France, Great Britain). What it takes for a peoples to become great they must continue to do. When they stop doing it, they begin their inevitable decline and fall.
The United States started its serious decline in the 1960s, when it lost its moral compass and "intellectuals" began a serious attack on the traditions and unified beliefs upon which the country had been established and built. (Future historians might argue for an earlier beginning, and I'm tempted to.) The pre-60s America was an America of individualism, a morality solidly based on Judeo-Christian values, and an American exceptionalism that was unique, almost to world history. The country was far from perfect, of course, and made many mistakes in its history; imperfect, sinful human beings will always commit grievous errors. Still, there were enough of the qualities (frugality, morality, industry) to build and grow a mighty country. These are values which are rarely exalted today, and when people are not taught something, they will not know it. The last generation of "intellectuals" and politicians has been busy criticizing and undermining America's historical values and it has taken its toll.
More and more, an immoral, dependent, lazy populace has grown and replaced the stouter virtues of the past. Not every American has degenerated, of course; we speak of the decline of empires, and that implies gradualism, not immediacy. But Barack Obama and the Democratic Party has made its living over the last 50 years by appealing to that '60s generation of rising untraditional, unexceptional American ideals. More and more people reject the traditional and opt for the "progressive," which, of course, is not progressive at all, but the very opposite. Rather than individual virtue and industry--people taking care of themselves--there is a growing dependence upon government, something the Democratic Party exists for and without which, wouldn't exist any longer. Dependence means power for those who crave it, control over others. Vain, narcissistic politicians want that power, and a vain, narcisstic media wants to share it with them. Attack moral law, insist it doesn't exist, and people will, morally, fall into such a rank condition that there only hope is dependence, which is simply another word for slavery. Then, call such dependence "progressive"--lie like the Nazis--and people will be shamed if they don't go along with it. Who wants to be "unprogressive"? Hollywood, of course, pitches in with its ceaseless outpouring of immoral rot and attacks on the virtues of the past--virtues Hollywood portrays as the Southern "hick" and the bigoted clergyman. Folks, this is a classic, textbook example of decline and fall, and it won't be stopped.
Are there enough Americans left who believe in hard work and moral virtue to defeat Barack Obama? Yes, there are, but their numbers are decreasing and they will eventually be in the minority, if they aren't already. The left will cower them, probably violently as they always have, and the United States will slowly, but inevitably, descend into oblivion or, more likely, insignificance. A fractured, "multicultural" society, almost by definition, doesn't have the strength that comes from unity to ward off the rising, hungry mouths elsewhere that will do those things necessary to bring increase and success. Something must unite a people; what is it that unites America today besides geographical boundaries? The continued might and power of America is nowhere eternally decreed. Decline and fall can happen in the United States just as it has elsewhere. And that decline and fall is evident to those with the eyes to see. The election of people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, not to mention Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk, are full evidence of the gradual regression of a once-great country.
Our Founding Fathers were great historians who knew the lessons of the past. That's why they were able to establish a country on principles that made America great and have kept it so for over 200 years. But today we are living off the moral capital of those previous generations, and that moral capital is almost gone. Two quotes from Benjamin Franklin as I close: "When the people discover they can vote themselves money from the Treasury, that will herald the doom of the Republic." Republics--especially democratic Republics--must have a moral, hard-working, economically independent people. Dependency and a republic are opposites. Franklin also said, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." What better description is there of the decline of the United States?
Obama On Waterboarding
April, 2009: "I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationals were used, it was a mistake." This is after he became President.
October, 2007: “The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer – it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it.”
Yesterday (Tuesday) White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan said that waterboarding did not provide any crucial information in locating Osama bin Laden. But he didn't deny it took place!
As Representative Steve King of Iowa asked, "Wonder what President Obama thinks of waterboarding now?"
October, 2007: “The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer – it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach. Torture is how you create enemies, not how you defeat them. Torture is how you get bad information, not good intelligence. Torture is how you set back America’s standing in the world, not how you strengthen it.”
Yesterday (Tuesday) White House deputy national security advisor John Brennan said that waterboarding did not provide any crucial information in locating Osama bin Laden. But he didn't deny it took place!
As Representative Steve King of Iowa asked, "Wonder what President Obama thinks of waterboarding now?"
What A Pack Of Hypocrites
Leon Panetta, who is the currect Director of the CIA (and an Obama appointee) admitted in an interview that, "water boarding" was one of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques used to get information about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Liberals like Obama went catatonic when they found out, a few years ago, during the Bush administration that "torture" like "water boarding" was being used on terrorist detainees. Now, they use it themselves. I wonder if the liberal media will lead the same kind of outcry against Obama as they did against Bush.
Want to take any bets that they won't?
Want to take any bets that they won't?
As Usual, Rush Nails It
This is largely what I wrote yesterday, but Rush puts it nicely and succinctly.
"Virtually every tool, apparatus, technique, and policy employed by the administration to effect a successful mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, they campaigned on ending. Now they claim credit for being gutsy and courageous, when none of this would have been available to them had they had their druthers. It's a darn good thing, in retrospect, that President Obama listened to President Bush rather than Sen. Obama."--Rush Limbaugh, May 3
"Virtually every tool, apparatus, technique, and policy employed by the administration to effect a successful mission to kill Osama Bin Laden, they campaigned on ending. Now they claim credit for being gutsy and courageous, when none of this would have been available to them had they had their druthers. It's a darn good thing, in retrospect, that President Obama listened to President Bush rather than Sen. Obama."--Rush Limbaugh, May 3
Bin Laden's Death
It's unbelievable. Not that Osama bin Laden is dead. Everybody dies at some point, and probably all that will happen is that Al-Qaeda will simply raise up somebody to put in his chair. It would be nice if this were the end of that terrorist organization, but don't count on it.
No, what's unbelievable is the apparent glee that liberals have over his death, precisely because it happened on Barack Obama's watch. Obama had nothing to do with it, of course, except he had the sense to leave the troops THAT GEORGE BUSH SENT in Afghanistan so that they could continue the war against terror. Obama campaigned long and hard about how he was going to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan--"yeah, yeah, yeah," the liberals echoed, "why are our boys dying over there?" I've heard liberals say let's pull the troops out immediately, regardless of the consequences. But now...Obama is a great military leader because bin Laden is dead. Barack Obama has been such an incredibly inept President that his sycophants are panting for anything--anything--they can find to give him credit for. Even when this is really George Bush's kill. But they aren't going to give Bush credit for anything. Rather praise God than George Bush.
We're all glad that bin Laden is dead, though again, it remains to be seen how effectual this is in emasculating Al-Qaeda. It happened when Obama was President, and it is the nature of things for the sitting President to take the credit--or get the blame--for things he really had very little to do with. Yet, again, Obama has kept our troops over there. It's his military action now just like it's his economy now. But he didn't start the former and he hasn't helped the latter.
Yet, let the liberals have a gasp of fresh air. They haven't had one since Obama was elected.
No, what's unbelievable is the apparent glee that liberals have over his death, precisely because it happened on Barack Obama's watch. Obama had nothing to do with it, of course, except he had the sense to leave the troops THAT GEORGE BUSH SENT in Afghanistan so that they could continue the war against terror. Obama campaigned long and hard about how he was going to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan--"yeah, yeah, yeah," the liberals echoed, "why are our boys dying over there?" I've heard liberals say let's pull the troops out immediately, regardless of the consequences. But now...Obama is a great military leader because bin Laden is dead. Barack Obama has been such an incredibly inept President that his sycophants are panting for anything--anything--they can find to give him credit for. Even when this is really George Bush's kill. But they aren't going to give Bush credit for anything. Rather praise God than George Bush.
We're all glad that bin Laden is dead, though again, it remains to be seen how effectual this is in emasculating Al-Qaeda. It happened when Obama was President, and it is the nature of things for the sitting President to take the credit--or get the blame--for things he really had very little to do with. Yet, again, Obama has kept our troops over there. It's his military action now just like it's his economy now. But he didn't start the former and he hasn't helped the latter.
Yet, let the liberals have a gasp of fresh air. They haven't had one since Obama was elected.
Current Event Ramblings, April 22
I just finished a busy week here. We finally had some adult students, so it was a much more enjoyable week. Next week, some high school students are coming from a major foreign language institute here in Korea and their English is supposed to be very good, so that should be a good week. The following week I'm on vacation. I'm not sure what I'll do yet; probably nothing. I'm pretty good at that. I want to do some writing, I just hope I feel like it.
**********
I had an interesting discussion yesterday with some of the students who were here. They asked me if I thought the American military ought to remain in Korea. I told them that I wish we'd go home. The United States is trillions of dollars in debt and is going to have to start cutting back somewhere, some time, and priorities must be arranged. Interestingly, the students wanted the U.S. military to stay; they fear China, not North Korea. I still don't think China wants a war; why should they when they are purchasing America piecemeal by owning so much of our debt? I also mentioned to them that, at some point, the South Koreans are going to have to stand on their own two feet and defend their own country. They understand that. But it is as difficult to wean people from international welfare as it is to wean them from national welfare, and the U.S. has poured--and does pour--a lot of money into this country. Why would they want us to leave? I don't expect it will happen any time soon.
**********
I read the other day that the American foreign welfare spigot showered $25 million into Libya. What on earth for? I thought Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut out all this involvement around the world. Ah, well, what's 25 million bucks when you're already trillions in debt? I also read there is talk that NATO--and the United States is part of that organization, of course--might send ground troops into Libya. Is Ghaddafi really that big of a threat to us? At least Iraq has oil...oil we wouldn't need if we would drill in our own country. Well, I've been there before so I won't go back.
**********
Obama says he was born in Kenya (he's said it more than once, just YouTube it). His wife said that Kenya is his home country. The Kenyans say he was born in Kenya. He's produced no valid American birth certificate (well, he can't if he wasn't born in the United States). But the liberal media says he was born in America, so that's all that matters. Frankly, I don't care where he was born; he's President, and if he did, for some reason, resign, we'd have Joe Biden in the office. That's better?
But yes, Obama--and Biden--need to be removed from office because their policies are wrong. They are in opposition to moral and economic law, and are accelerating the decline of the United States economy and the principles of frugality, virtue, self-worth, and industry that are necessary for individuals--and countries--to succeed. It's probably already too late for the United States. That the country would elect Barak Obama to the highest office in the land (after having twice elected that lying, adulterous cur, Bill Clinton) is a fair indication of how far America has degenerated. But that degeneration is exactly what Obama and the liberal, secular elite want, because then, the degenerate will look to them for direction and support. And it is that power that the secular left wants. People who take care of themselves don't need government, and that is the very antithesis of the modern liberal philosophy, which defines "progress" as more government. I will fully admit that a certain amount of government is (unfortunately) necessary to protect freedom. But I also insist there comes a point when government ceases to be the protector of freedom and becomes the purloiner, thus enemy, of it. The modern left is no friend of freedom, with the notable exception of sexual freedom, which is no freedom at all. For, as Thomas Jefferson said 200 years ago, a person who denies, rejects, and does not abide by moral (i.e., God's) law will eventually become enslaved to his own passions. And such a person will almost invariably turn to government for help. Dependence upon government is not freedom, folks. But it is exactly what the liberal left wants. Abortion...AIDS...out of wedlock births and the resultant poverty...how many trillions of tax dollars have been poured into these monuments of liberal "morality"? Tax dollars, incidentally, earned by, and then forceably taken from, hard-working, decent, self-disciplined people. Yeah, let's have more "progress." Reader, never, never forget that virtue, hard work, self-reliance, self-control, frugality, religion, and the family and the greatest enemies of liberalism. Because people who have those qualities and honor those institutions do not need government, and hence, do not need a secular, liberal elite telling them how to live.
When was the last time you heard a politician--any politician--talk about the need for a virtuous citizenship? You haven't heard it, and you won't hear it, because a virtuous citizenry would put the modern professional politician out of a job.
**********
I had an interesting discussion yesterday with some of the students who were here. They asked me if I thought the American military ought to remain in Korea. I told them that I wish we'd go home. The United States is trillions of dollars in debt and is going to have to start cutting back somewhere, some time, and priorities must be arranged. Interestingly, the students wanted the U.S. military to stay; they fear China, not North Korea. I still don't think China wants a war; why should they when they are purchasing America piecemeal by owning so much of our debt? I also mentioned to them that, at some point, the South Koreans are going to have to stand on their own two feet and defend their own country. They understand that. But it is as difficult to wean people from international welfare as it is to wean them from national welfare, and the U.S. has poured--and does pour--a lot of money into this country. Why would they want us to leave? I don't expect it will happen any time soon.
**********
I read the other day that the American foreign welfare spigot showered $25 million into Libya. What on earth for? I thought Obama was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and cut out all this involvement around the world. Ah, well, what's 25 million bucks when you're already trillions in debt? I also read there is talk that NATO--and the United States is part of that organization, of course--might send ground troops into Libya. Is Ghaddafi really that big of a threat to us? At least Iraq has oil...oil we wouldn't need if we would drill in our own country. Well, I've been there before so I won't go back.
**********
Obama says he was born in Kenya (he's said it more than once, just YouTube it). His wife said that Kenya is his home country. The Kenyans say he was born in Kenya. He's produced no valid American birth certificate (well, he can't if he wasn't born in the United States). But the liberal media says he was born in America, so that's all that matters. Frankly, I don't care where he was born; he's President, and if he did, for some reason, resign, we'd have Joe Biden in the office. That's better?
But yes, Obama--and Biden--need to be removed from office because their policies are wrong. They are in opposition to moral and economic law, and are accelerating the decline of the United States economy and the principles of frugality, virtue, self-worth, and industry that are necessary for individuals--and countries--to succeed. It's probably already too late for the United States. That the country would elect Barak Obama to the highest office in the land (after having twice elected that lying, adulterous cur, Bill Clinton) is a fair indication of how far America has degenerated. But that degeneration is exactly what Obama and the liberal, secular elite want, because then, the degenerate will look to them for direction and support. And it is that power that the secular left wants. People who take care of themselves don't need government, and that is the very antithesis of the modern liberal philosophy, which defines "progress" as more government. I will fully admit that a certain amount of government is (unfortunately) necessary to protect freedom. But I also insist there comes a point when government ceases to be the protector of freedom and becomes the purloiner, thus enemy, of it. The modern left is no friend of freedom, with the notable exception of sexual freedom, which is no freedom at all. For, as Thomas Jefferson said 200 years ago, a person who denies, rejects, and does not abide by moral (i.e., God's) law will eventually become enslaved to his own passions. And such a person will almost invariably turn to government for help. Dependence upon government is not freedom, folks. But it is exactly what the liberal left wants. Abortion...AIDS...out of wedlock births and the resultant poverty...how many trillions of tax dollars have been poured into these monuments of liberal "morality"? Tax dollars, incidentally, earned by, and then forceably taken from, hard-working, decent, self-disciplined people. Yeah, let's have more "progress." Reader, never, never forget that virtue, hard work, self-reliance, self-control, frugality, religion, and the family and the greatest enemies of liberalism. Because people who have those qualities and honor those institutions do not need government, and hence, do not need a secular, liberal elite telling them how to live.
When was the last time you heard a politician--any politician--talk about the need for a virtuous citizenship? You haven't heard it, and you won't hear it, because a virtuous citizenry would put the modern professional politician out of a job.
Current Event Ramblings, April 9
The weather here in South Korea has finally warmed up a bit. We're supposed to hit the low 60s today. That means hot weather is just around the corner and it was miserably hot and humid here last summer. There's nothing I can do about it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.
**********
Baseball season has started and the Astros are playing about like I expected--they lost their first 5 games before they finally won one. They may have the worst team in baseball, though their first six games were against the Phillies and Reds on the road. Those are two of the best teams in the league. The Rangers have started out well. Of the two Texas teams, they are the only one with much chance of having a decent year. I'll comment on baseball occasionally, but it's not a high priority
**********
In the news, there's still talk of a government shutdown if there's no budget deal. Shame on the Republicans for demanding a government budget! The Democrats have done a marvelous job the past two years in running up huge deficits without one. The Dems are threatening to shut down the government if a rider is attached to it extending funding to the Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan conflicts, but they are insistent that Planned Parenthood (i.e., abortions) be funded. The Democrats are calling it a "women's health" issure. So American babies can be killed, but our military can't be funded. You've gotta love (pardon my facetiousness) how utterly immoral and amoral the Democratic Party has become. I hope the government IS shut down, and for as long as possible. Those people in Washington, D.C., are the ones destroying America. Go home Congress, and stay there, and let the people take care of themselves. Even the welfare junkies will do it if they have to. That's the way it's supposed to be. In early America, Congress met for maybe 3 or 4 months a year and then the members went home to make a living. What a novel concept.
Addendum (later in the day): About two hours after I wrote the above paragraph, a budget deal was announced. It is to supposed to cut $38 billion from the budget this year and $500 billion over the next 10 years.
I think it's worth noting that it's the Republicans (and the "Tea Party") who forced this to be done.
**********
Donald Trump has been vocal about pressing Obama for his American birth certificate. Hawaiian authorities say Obama was born there, but they've produced no birth certificate as proof. The governor of Hawaii (a friend of Obama's) says Obama was born there, but he's produced no birth certificate, either. The President and his wife have both said, publicly, that he was born in Kenya. The Kenyans certainly think so. I don't know where the man was born and I don't really care. Neither he nor Congress have paid the least bit of attention to the Constitution anyway, so why should they bother with where he was born? And such ignoring of the supreme law of the land didn't start with Obama and the current bunch of rogues in Washington. The U.S. Constitution has been a dead letter for a long time. Trump has talked about running for President next year. He says he'll announce his decision soon. Even though he has no politcal experience, he certainly couldn't do any worse, domestically, than Obama and the professional politicians who keep getting elected to Congress. Trump might be a welcome change since it's the politicians who are destroying the country. The area of concern with Trump is his lack of foreign affairs experience. He's going to be dealing with a lot of rogues out there, and that would be a challenge. But, again, he couldn't do worse than Obama who is utterly clueless in how to handle world affairs. We ought to mind our own business, anyway, and involve ourselves only in those matters that directly affect us. That ain't gonna happen, though. Today's American politician thinks he can remake America, so it's only one more step to believing he can remake the world. That's the arrogance and philosophy of the modern secular elite.
Trump DOES know how to meet a budget; he would never have gotten where he is otherwise. Perhaps that's the best argument for electing him. Private business must make ends meet or they go out of the business. That's the difference between private enterprise and government. The government can simply borrow, raise taxes, or print more money. There is no accountability except to voters whose votes you are trying to buy...via borrowing, raising (someone else's) taxes, or printing more money.
Too bad government can't go out of business and turn its affairs over to some entity that can effectively handle them without fleecing the very people trying to be helped. Most of what government does COULD be turned over to some other agency, and be handled far more effectively. But that's not the way to remain in power and try to reshape society upon one's own vision of Shangri-la.
If the U.S. government HAD shut down, it would have been reduced mostly to doing the things government is supposed to do--protecting its people. Too bad they worked out a deal.
**********
Baseball season has started and the Astros are playing about like I expected--they lost their first 5 games before they finally won one. They may have the worst team in baseball, though their first six games were against the Phillies and Reds on the road. Those are two of the best teams in the league. The Rangers have started out well. Of the two Texas teams, they are the only one with much chance of having a decent year. I'll comment on baseball occasionally, but it's not a high priority
**********
In the news, there's still talk of a government shutdown if there's no budget deal. Shame on the Republicans for demanding a government budget! The Democrats have done a marvelous job the past two years in running up huge deficits without one. The Dems are threatening to shut down the government if a rider is attached to it extending funding to the Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan conflicts, but they are insistent that Planned Parenthood (i.e., abortions) be funded. The Democrats are calling it a "women's health" issure. So American babies can be killed, but our military can't be funded. You've gotta love (pardon my facetiousness) how utterly immoral and amoral the Democratic Party has become. I hope the government IS shut down, and for as long as possible. Those people in Washington, D.C., are the ones destroying America. Go home Congress, and stay there, and let the people take care of themselves. Even the welfare junkies will do it if they have to. That's the way it's supposed to be. In early America, Congress met for maybe 3 or 4 months a year and then the members went home to make a living. What a novel concept.
Addendum (later in the day): About two hours after I wrote the above paragraph, a budget deal was announced. It is to supposed to cut $38 billion from the budget this year and $500 billion over the next 10 years.
I think it's worth noting that it's the Republicans (and the "Tea Party") who forced this to be done.
**********
Donald Trump has been vocal about pressing Obama for his American birth certificate. Hawaiian authorities say Obama was born there, but they've produced no birth certificate as proof. The governor of Hawaii (a friend of Obama's) says Obama was born there, but he's produced no birth certificate, either. The President and his wife have both said, publicly, that he was born in Kenya. The Kenyans certainly think so. I don't know where the man was born and I don't really care. Neither he nor Congress have paid the least bit of attention to the Constitution anyway, so why should they bother with where he was born? And such ignoring of the supreme law of the land didn't start with Obama and the current bunch of rogues in Washington. The U.S. Constitution has been a dead letter for a long time. Trump has talked about running for President next year. He says he'll announce his decision soon. Even though he has no politcal experience, he certainly couldn't do any worse, domestically, than Obama and the professional politicians who keep getting elected to Congress. Trump might be a welcome change since it's the politicians who are destroying the country. The area of concern with Trump is his lack of foreign affairs experience. He's going to be dealing with a lot of rogues out there, and that would be a challenge. But, again, he couldn't do worse than Obama who is utterly clueless in how to handle world affairs. We ought to mind our own business, anyway, and involve ourselves only in those matters that directly affect us. That ain't gonna happen, though. Today's American politician thinks he can remake America, so it's only one more step to believing he can remake the world. That's the arrogance and philosophy of the modern secular elite.
Trump DOES know how to meet a budget; he would never have gotten where he is otherwise. Perhaps that's the best argument for electing him. Private business must make ends meet or they go out of the business. That's the difference between private enterprise and government. The government can simply borrow, raise taxes, or print more money. There is no accountability except to voters whose votes you are trying to buy...via borrowing, raising (someone else's) taxes, or printing more money.
Too bad government can't go out of business and turn its affairs over to some entity that can effectively handle them without fleecing the very people trying to be helped. Most of what government does COULD be turned over to some other agency, and be handled far more effectively. But that's not the way to remain in power and try to reshape society upon one's own vision of Shangri-la.
If the U.S. government HAD shut down, it would have been reduced mostly to doing the things government is supposed to do--protecting its people. Too bad they worked out a deal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
