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.
Headline number one: “Actress Hopes Storm (Hurricane Isaac) Kills 'Every Pro-Life, Xenophobic, Gay-Bashing SOB'…”
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.
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!
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.
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:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
**********
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.
**********
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:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/2012_electoral_college_scoreboard
**********
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.
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...
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;
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 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.
Hoooooo-huuuuummmm....
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
