If you were going to design a perfect society where would you begin? What characteristics define a perfect society? In futuristic movies you see a multicultural (sometimes multi species) caricature of society all getting along, all perusing peace, all with what may seem like the same values.
Is a perfect society founded on values or rules?
That question is easily answerable with the example of California. California is a state that is practically founded on “Progressive” ideas some of which were actually progressive for their time. However, California legislators have made a dangerous substitution, exchanging values for rules.
California legislators continue to stand between parents and children in their upbringing with the liberal agenda being pushing in the public schools system. Beyond that California and the federal government in some cases have minimized the role of parents and even more father in the family unit to such a degree that we now find legislation that mimic morality. Like a prostatic limb legislators have passed and forced laws that common sense was made for. More often than not these laws defy common sense.
That very inconsistency is the mud that law creates when values are absent. Abortion is legal but there is a limit to when you can abort? This inconsistent idea is a slap in the face of rational thought. Lawmakers are defining when life begins arbitrarily though legislation. This sends a mixed signal that right and wrong is completely subjective to who can afford a better arbitrator.
We now see moral issue after moral issue completely blurred because the legitimacy of those issues is up for debate. The irony, for example with same sex marriage is that people who want to maintain the sanctity of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman come from a moral and practical standpoint. How it is ironic is because advocates of same sex marriage declare that their opposition are bigots and homophobic. How can the accused moral down fall of a side by not acknowledging some twisted idea of equality even be relevant when this issue is up for debate only because the morality that was once universal is now obsolete? Obviously if morality is subjective to the majorities ideals then right and wrong, morality, or even ideas of equality are completely subjective and nobody has any rational base to stand on…
So again we have to defer to legislation to decide through deliberation.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Gay Marriage, Black Americans, and The Democrat’s Weapon of Mass Disparagement
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL
(If you'd like to read the ruling)
What is one to say about this over turning of the will of the people with the recent ruling by Judge Walker concerning California's Proposition 8? Should I begin by listing the friends I have that are homosexual to absolve myself from bigotry? Should I site the list of dishonest associations to the past civil rights struggles of black Americans that supposedly legitimize the claims of the proponents of same sex marriage? The very mention of the black American's struggle for civil rights as if this is history repeated makes a dishonest comparison that not only discounts the history of black Americans, since their claim in no way elevates that of black Americans but also the comparison asserts homosexuals a supposed "minority group" status in America. We see yet again, that the plight of black Americans being used for the benefit of the political Left... It begs the question why would any Democrat in leadership want to help the black Americans of this country? It's obvious that the disposition and victim status of black Americans serves the Left without end.
(In case I didn't say that clear enough; if the Democrat leadership actually got out of the way of the needed healing of this country for the status of black Americans, they would forfeit their most valuable weapon, i.e. black victimization and social unease.)
There is an underground movement in this country by a loud fringe minority that comes from the abandonment of common sense. People have rewritten The Declaration of Independence from, "all men are created equal..." to read, "all groups are created equal". Which stands as the first victory for the same sex marriage movement. The status of "minority group" gave homosexuals an association, which they use to their advantage. It is because of that 'slight of hand' that we are forced to have this discussion explaining the difference between the struggle for black American's civil rights and homosexuals right to marriage. Yet again, we visit a reopening of that old wound of black Americans suffering, which serves its purpose for The Left. It does the job it has done for similar Leftist issues. It plants the seed of guilt for those who would object to homosexual marriage by making the association with the black American’s history of discrimination, which in-turn becomes silence by those who would speak out against it... which basically equals support for homosexual marriage. Evidence of that is the number of witnesses both sides of the case brought to the stand. Witnesses 'for same sex marriage': 16, witnesses protecting The Constitutional Amendment: 2...
Every advocate of same sex marriage knows that America does not agree with their self-proclaimed minority status, nor do Americans empathize with the actual issue of the "right" to marry. But, they know that they don't need the support of Americans... The advocates of homosexual marriage only need to control the conversation. To insure that and because of those two facts the advocates of gay marriage tie themselves to the much larger universally accepted issue of civil rights for black Americans. This wound is left festering in today’s politics by fools like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; adding insult to injury, more recently by our President in his silence. Barrack Obama if he put America first he would be condemning the idea that attacks on his administration are based in racism. The racial divide in America serves Obama’s agenda as it serves the Left. Again, The Left understands that their power comes from the unease of black Americans so they make sure to fuel that whenever they need any reinvigoration in their party.
Advocates of homosexual marriage need to deliver guilt to their opponents. They have successfully created a false premise saying that it took courts to legalize the right for interracial marriage and desegregation; comparing that to California's overwhelming support for Prop 8, which is intellectually dishonest (to use nice words)... (The Prop 8 bill was rewritten by California's Attorney General, W. Brown. His revision read that voting "Yes" for proposition 8 was saying that you "want to TAKE AWAY the rights for homosexuals to marry. This ballot measure was created due to the 2008 California Supreme Courts over turning of the year 2000 ballot measure Prop 22, defining marriage between one man and one woman.)
The false premise is asserting that courts were the reason desegregation started not to mention, implying that they were ahead of the moral curve compared to main stream Americans in its desire to make it federal law that no state can make any laws that racially discriminates. If you didn’t know better you would think that the integration of black Americans into public schools on the news in the 60’s were the first to desegregate, when in fact they were some of the last.
Still, The Left tries to own the title of “people’s champ”, when in fact they have been on the wrong side of history in almost every case they pretend to champion. It’s almost unbelievable that Democrats use imagery of past black American injustice to promote their future initiatives, when in fact; the past injustices they claim to abhor were prolonged as well as endorsed by their own party’s obstructionism. Historically if Democrats did not stand in the way of Conservatives, slavery would have ended sooner, desegregation would have happened faster, and we would be that much closer to the dream where men would be measured by the content of there character not by the color of their skin opposite of what this present administration would like with its reinvestment into racial quotas.
Judge Walker, who delivered his verdict, ruled that the defense of Prop 8 did not show sufficient evidence to support the claims that homosexual marriage would undermine traditional marriage, or that same sex marriage was in anyway harmful to the developing psyche of kids brought up in that environment. (I have to digress yet again...ironically, the Left would seem to be masters of predicting calamity, from cel phone brain tumors, breast implant seepage, a heterosexual AIDS epidemic, widespread homelessness, over population, to man-made Global Warming™. Why this is ironic is because the arguments for these hysterical issues are always left to Conservatives to 'prove the negative'. Conservatives (for the most part) have to, "prove the world will not end by toxic levels of man produced carbon emissions in the year 2050..." Yet, when it comes to our ability to have them prove a negative that is much more likely, proof that this will not damage traditional marriage, the foundation of our civilization or the developmental psyche of kids into adulthood... we get an unwavering, very objective response from Judge Walker saying that Supporters of traditional marriage "did not supply sufficient evidence" to prove that their will be damage to society with the legitimization of same sex marriage... Shouldn't advocates of gay marriage have to prove that their desires for same sex marriage will not serve as a detriment to society? Not in this backwards world. But widespread destruction by man-made emissions... this is practically a "fact"... (We are told that there is consensus on the issue when only a fraction of scientists adhere to such claims).
It is of note that the unique situation of Judge Walker (who was a Reagan appointee) is in fact homosexual. Why this is of note is because striking down the claim of advocates for same sex marriage puts him in a potential conflict of interest. The reasons stated earlier in this piece for his judgment (of not finding sufficient evidence that gay marriage would damage two pillars in America, one being traditional marriage and the second, being future generations)... If he had ruled in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as ‘one man, one woman’, it could be interpreted to himself that he would be admitting that their may be a moral issue at hand, further that a society is handicapped by his own personal core desires... Could it be understood that a homosexual man declaring that same sex marriage is not beneficial for a society cause him to question the root and legitimacy of his sexual orientation?
How can this possibly be reconciled? Ah... the magic question... Judge Walker declared that "morality was not the issue but legality is..." (paraphrased)
If one is to a measure of all the double standards of The Left, that person might find that those double standards are innumerable. Leftists do not believe in logic or morality or reason... Their values lie in emotion. It is not a double standard to The Left to capitalize on the historical moral mistreatment of black Americans to further their cause but then declare that morality plays no role in the governing factors of the right to marry.
(If you'd like to read the ruling)
What is one to say about this over turning of the will of the people with the recent ruling by Judge Walker concerning California's Proposition 8? Should I begin by listing the friends I have that are homosexual to absolve myself from bigotry? Should I site the list of dishonest associations to the past civil rights struggles of black Americans that supposedly legitimize the claims of the proponents of same sex marriage? The very mention of the black American's struggle for civil rights as if this is history repeated makes a dishonest comparison that not only discounts the history of black Americans, since their claim in no way elevates that of black Americans but also the comparison asserts homosexuals a supposed "minority group" status in America. We see yet again, that the plight of black Americans being used for the benefit of the political Left... It begs the question why would any Democrat in leadership want to help the black Americans of this country? It's obvious that the disposition and victim status of black Americans serves the Left without end.
(In case I didn't say that clear enough; if the Democrat leadership actually got out of the way of the needed healing of this country for the status of black Americans, they would forfeit their most valuable weapon, i.e. black victimization and social unease.)
There is an underground movement in this country by a loud fringe minority that comes from the abandonment of common sense. People have rewritten The Declaration of Independence from, "all men are created equal..." to read, "all groups are created equal". Which stands as the first victory for the same sex marriage movement. The status of "minority group" gave homosexuals an association, which they use to their advantage. It is because of that 'slight of hand' that we are forced to have this discussion explaining the difference between the struggle for black American's civil rights and homosexuals right to marriage. Yet again, we visit a reopening of that old wound of black Americans suffering, which serves its purpose for The Left. It does the job it has done for similar Leftist issues. It plants the seed of guilt for those who would object to homosexual marriage by making the association with the black American’s history of discrimination, which in-turn becomes silence by those who would speak out against it... which basically equals support for homosexual marriage. Evidence of that is the number of witnesses both sides of the case brought to the stand. Witnesses 'for same sex marriage': 16, witnesses protecting The Constitutional Amendment: 2...
Every advocate of same sex marriage knows that America does not agree with their self-proclaimed minority status, nor do Americans empathize with the actual issue of the "right" to marry. But, they know that they don't need the support of Americans... The advocates of homosexual marriage only need to control the conversation. To insure that and because of those two facts the advocates of gay marriage tie themselves to the much larger universally accepted issue of civil rights for black Americans. This wound is left festering in today’s politics by fools like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; adding insult to injury, more recently by our President in his silence. Barrack Obama if he put America first he would be condemning the idea that attacks on his administration are based in racism. The racial divide in America serves Obama’s agenda as it serves the Left. Again, The Left understands that their power comes from the unease of black Americans so they make sure to fuel that whenever they need any reinvigoration in their party.
Advocates of homosexual marriage need to deliver guilt to their opponents. They have successfully created a false premise saying that it took courts to legalize the right for interracial marriage and desegregation; comparing that to California's overwhelming support for Prop 8, which is intellectually dishonest (to use nice words)... (The Prop 8 bill was rewritten by California's Attorney General, W. Brown. His revision read that voting "Yes" for proposition 8 was saying that you "want to TAKE AWAY the rights for homosexuals to marry. This ballot measure was created due to the 2008 California Supreme Courts over turning of the year 2000 ballot measure Prop 22, defining marriage between one man and one woman.)
The false premise is asserting that courts were the reason desegregation started not to mention, implying that they were ahead of the moral curve compared to main stream Americans in its desire to make it federal law that no state can make any laws that racially discriminates. If you didn’t know better you would think that the integration of black Americans into public schools on the news in the 60’s were the first to desegregate, when in fact they were some of the last.
Still, The Left tries to own the title of “people’s champ”, when in fact they have been on the wrong side of history in almost every case they pretend to champion. It’s almost unbelievable that Democrats use imagery of past black American injustice to promote their future initiatives, when in fact; the past injustices they claim to abhor were prolonged as well as endorsed by their own party’s obstructionism. Historically if Democrats did not stand in the way of Conservatives, slavery would have ended sooner, desegregation would have happened faster, and we would be that much closer to the dream where men would be measured by the content of there character not by the color of their skin opposite of what this present administration would like with its reinvestment into racial quotas.
Judge Walker, who delivered his verdict, ruled that the defense of Prop 8 did not show sufficient evidence to support the claims that homosexual marriage would undermine traditional marriage, or that same sex marriage was in anyway harmful to the developing psyche of kids brought up in that environment. (I have to digress yet again...ironically, the Left would seem to be masters of predicting calamity, from cel phone brain tumors, breast implant seepage, a heterosexual AIDS epidemic, widespread homelessness, over population, to man-made Global Warming™. Why this is ironic is because the arguments for these hysterical issues are always left to Conservatives to 'prove the negative'. Conservatives (for the most part) have to, "prove the world will not end by toxic levels of man produced carbon emissions in the year 2050..." Yet, when it comes to our ability to have them prove a negative that is much more likely, proof that this will not damage traditional marriage, the foundation of our civilization or the developmental psyche of kids into adulthood... we get an unwavering, very objective response from Judge Walker saying that Supporters of traditional marriage "did not supply sufficient evidence" to prove that their will be damage to society with the legitimization of same sex marriage... Shouldn't advocates of gay marriage have to prove that their desires for same sex marriage will not serve as a detriment to society? Not in this backwards world. But widespread destruction by man-made emissions... this is practically a "fact"... (We are told that there is consensus on the issue when only a fraction of scientists adhere to such claims).
It is of note that the unique situation of Judge Walker (who was a Reagan appointee) is in fact homosexual. Why this is of note is because striking down the claim of advocates for same sex marriage puts him in a potential conflict of interest. The reasons stated earlier in this piece for his judgment (of not finding sufficient evidence that gay marriage would damage two pillars in America, one being traditional marriage and the second, being future generations)... If he had ruled in favor of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as ‘one man, one woman’, it could be interpreted to himself that he would be admitting that their may be a moral issue at hand, further that a society is handicapped by his own personal core desires... Could it be understood that a homosexual man declaring that same sex marriage is not beneficial for a society cause him to question the root and legitimacy of his sexual orientation?
How can this possibly be reconciled? Ah... the magic question... Judge Walker declared that "morality was not the issue but legality is..." (paraphrased)
If one is to a measure of all the double standards of The Left, that person might find that those double standards are innumerable. Leftists do not believe in logic or morality or reason... Their values lie in emotion. It is not a double standard to The Left to capitalize on the historical moral mistreatment of black Americans to further their cause but then declare that morality plays no role in the governing factors of the right to marry.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Power To the People
I find myself wondering about death every now and then... You see on the news or read in history, or even see in movies of some historical event of some way someone died... I think about the soldiers on D Day or the passengers of the Titanic... people who knew death was coming well before it came... what thoughts went through their heads... did they find some peace in knowing there was nothing they could do? Did they struggle?
Today we watch our country take blow after blow against the very foundations of what the United States has stood for... We see a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the very court that will be interpreting The Constitution, completely disregarding its principles... Evading every question, lying about her beliefs... We see a Republican Party more dedicated to decorum that the future of this country.
We have a president, sitting on his hands during disasters, continually blaming capitalism and low taxes for the recession that his administration is prolonging and making worse. We see him bypassing our Constitution, race baiting immigration issues, pulling at the loose threads of our society as if he is a righteous cancer inflicted on the villain...
Where are we today... Those who rise up are called racists (Tea Party)... We have a bold spokesmen in Sarah Palin who is completely shut down by media, debased as a fool while our Vice President Joe Biden seems to be weekly competing for "America's dumbest leader"...
From extreme left wing, socialist, anti capitalist, anti-American political leaders, unions, educators, journalists... Where do we go as a people?
It is not enough to win in November! It is a fight for generations ahead of us. There needs to be a movement that creates commissions to investigate "climate change", the Governments involvement with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, Goldman Sacks. A commission investigating Barney Franks involvement with the housing crisis, a commission investigating exactly where the stimulus money went. A commission on the response time of the Government's reaction to the Gulf spill... And a commission on the seizing of the bonds of GM from private owners and the handing over of ownership to the auto workers union.
We cannot say that Barack Obama sitting on his hands in crisis is offensive if we do the same without acting to change this corrupt government...
Today we watch our country take blow after blow against the very foundations of what the United States has stood for... We see a person nominated to the Supreme Court, the very court that will be interpreting The Constitution, completely disregarding its principles... Evading every question, lying about her beliefs... We see a Republican Party more dedicated to decorum that the future of this country.
We have a president, sitting on his hands during disasters, continually blaming capitalism and low taxes for the recession that his administration is prolonging and making worse. We see him bypassing our Constitution, race baiting immigration issues, pulling at the loose threads of our society as if he is a righteous cancer inflicted on the villain...
Where are we today... Those who rise up are called racists (Tea Party)... We have a bold spokesmen in Sarah Palin who is completely shut down by media, debased as a fool while our Vice President Joe Biden seems to be weekly competing for "America's dumbest leader"...
From extreme left wing, socialist, anti capitalist, anti-American political leaders, unions, educators, journalists... Where do we go as a people?
It is not enough to win in November! It is a fight for generations ahead of us. There needs to be a movement that creates commissions to investigate "climate change", the Governments involvement with Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, Goldman Sacks. A commission investigating Barney Franks involvement with the housing crisis, a commission investigating exactly where the stimulus money went. A commission on the response time of the Government's reaction to the Gulf spill... And a commission on the seizing of the bonds of GM from private owners and the handing over of ownership to the auto workers union.
We cannot say that Barack Obama sitting on his hands in crisis is offensive if we do the same without acting to change this corrupt government...
Friday, January 22, 2010
Social Justice Versus the American Dream
There are some phrases in pop culture that we hear but never take any moments to consider or digest. Like a blemish or scar these phrases slowly become commonplace in conversation by public leaders used without any real definition but instead to just convey a general negative happening that the speaker is describing… We saw that with the term “climate change”… it was introduced as an alternative to the much too specific descriptive “Global Warming” so not to be bound by any specific language like “warming”. That little parsing of words allowed for the fanaticism of the environmentally religious to ascribe any noteworthy meteorigical event to be yet more examples of the “damage” being done to the Earth by expansion of the free market.
In the spirit of slippery language (brought to you by Liberals/Statists, known more commonly as Democrats) we come to yet another divisive phrase to be added to the newspeak of the Liberal’s lexicon… As always this new phrase has been made to be stretched and bent, pulled and pushed to mean just about anything so that Democrats can prop up one more fabricated dragon to be slain. However, in using addition by subtraction we are able to define the latest and greatest from the anti–American crowd’s phrase “Social Justice”…
Like any well thought out political phrase it has its positive sound… After all how can “justice” be associated with anything negative? The word justice implies that there is some objective gage in which to measure an issue, and, that gage is a universally shared value. Ironically when Liberals use word like “justice” they are betraying their core ideology of relativism… For them to assert anything like an objective moral truth would cause them to abandon the whole of their thinking…
Yet “social justice” is the new buzzword among the harbingers of victimization.
Social justice is Communism just the same as environmentalism is. The idea implies that you (the individual) are victims of the wealthy, of industry, and you haven’t been given the opportunities that you’re entitled to. The antidote (according to Democrat leaders) is to use your vote to tax (take by force) from industry and the “rich” so that the Government can then create programs that give the downtrodden the chance to take the life that was stolen. Implying the victimization of individuals, further asserting that need for government in each person’s life.
So what happens if you do take that government hand out and you then become part of the enemy (also known as) “the rich”… I’m sorry my friend… you are then a “social criminal” and you get penalized for your success. Somehow lost is the fallacy in the premise of the entire assertion. Democrat leaders vilify the success of privileged-individuals and industries, accusing that their successes were only found by taking from you the unprivileged-individual and its up to the government to regulate and steal from them to offer a hand to the unprivileged-individual to reach that same success.
Simply put, Liberals motivate their constituents with the dreams of becoming who they also demonize.
In the spirit of slippery language (brought to you by Liberals/Statists, known more commonly as Democrats) we come to yet another divisive phrase to be added to the newspeak of the Liberal’s lexicon… As always this new phrase has been made to be stretched and bent, pulled and pushed to mean just about anything so that Democrats can prop up one more fabricated dragon to be slain. However, in using addition by subtraction we are able to define the latest and greatest from the anti–American crowd’s phrase “Social Justice”…
Like any well thought out political phrase it has its positive sound… After all how can “justice” be associated with anything negative? The word justice implies that there is some objective gage in which to measure an issue, and, that gage is a universally shared value. Ironically when Liberals use word like “justice” they are betraying their core ideology of relativism… For them to assert anything like an objective moral truth would cause them to abandon the whole of their thinking…
Yet “social justice” is the new buzzword among the harbingers of victimization.
Social justice is Communism just the same as environmentalism is. The idea implies that you (the individual) are victims of the wealthy, of industry, and you haven’t been given the opportunities that you’re entitled to. The antidote (according to Democrat leaders) is to use your vote to tax (take by force) from industry and the “rich” so that the Government can then create programs that give the downtrodden the chance to take the life that was stolen. Implying the victimization of individuals, further asserting that need for government in each person’s life.
So what happens if you do take that government hand out and you then become part of the enemy (also known as) “the rich”… I’m sorry my friend… you are then a “social criminal” and you get penalized for your success. Somehow lost is the fallacy in the premise of the entire assertion. Democrat leaders vilify the success of privileged-individuals and industries, accusing that their successes were only found by taking from you the unprivileged-individual and its up to the government to regulate and steal from them to offer a hand to the unprivileged-individual to reach that same success.
Simply put, Liberals motivate their constituents with the dreams of becoming who they also demonize.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Don't Take Candy From Strangers
When I was growing up, there was a cliché saying, “Don’t take candy from strangers.” Even though it wasn’t explained nearly as much as it was repeated it was universally understood that it implied that there were bad people out there that would entice you with tasty treats… To what end was left the imagination.
Even though my generation who was raised on the true story TV mini series of Adam Walsh’s terrible kidnapping in the 80’s, we haven’t seemed to have taken anything away from the repeating of that cliché…
Don’t take Candy from strangers… seems simple enough. However, in November 2008 the American people hungry for proof that they were not the bigoted people that the Left of this country slander them as elected a stranger… a marketed black American that delivered a confident smile, a GQ look, and a handful of candy referred to as “Hope and Change”….
In December of this year in Copenhagen there is a summit planned to try to solve the believed issue of Global Warming (despite the almost 9 year cold trend that has contradicted all Global Warming computer models)… However this summit has with it a sting that wont effect any climate that has to do with weather but instead change the economic climate of the world in an irreversible forfeiting of sovereignty by the U.S. African and Latin countries have draw up a plan of a world government that would have jurisdiction over the carbon emissions of ANY country (including the U.S.) further that the larger industrial countries must pay reparations to developing countries for “damaging the earth”…
It goes without saying that in general the most depraved of all countries are in those conditions not because of Global Warming but because of their grossly corrupt governments… Africa and Latin America have more natural resources at their disposal than any other developed country yet there almost systematic transfer of power from warlord to dictator to thug keeps their countries from ever becoming anything other than third-world charity magnets… To add insult to injury to the abused people of these countries their loss of life, lack of food and general impoverished state are used to demonstrate the desperate need for these reparations yet, it is in Africa that the very environmentalist who use the photos of these people to create sympathy with one hand, and with the other deny them the use of DDT and pesticides for their crops. They do this by denying them aid if they do not abide by the strict rules environmentalists set… In Africa alone more than 50,000,000 people have died of malaria since the ban on DDT began…
In the U.S. there is a different contradiction… The United States has the will, the resources and the know-how to create a network of nuclear power plants that would decrease our “carbon footprint” by over 70% yet EVERY single environmental agency is against it. Rather than use 1 square mile for a power plant, they’d rather carpet the U.S. with towering windmills and 10’s of thousands of square miles of solar panels that require more water for cleaning than most small countries. Almost worse than that you have farms tearing out crops that could be used for food and planting corns and sugar field to get Federal subsidies for bio fuels. Ironically it takes 4 gallons of regular fuel to produce 1 gallon of bio-fuel. In fact if the “bio-fuel” industry had to run on bio-fuel it would be out of business before it started.
All the lies and contradictions of environmentalism aside the most striking of all is the shocking resemblance environmentalism has with good ol’ fashion communism.
How is it that the redistribution of wealth is the answer to what the Left feel is a “global crisis”?
More and more Obama officials are being outted as either former members of a communist party or out right describe their affections for communist leaders.
The United States is a land bless with prosperity because of the rights and liberties given to its citizens… But these rights and liberties will be stripped away by a world government lead by the most corrupt of third world countries who will tax us and cripple us in the name of environmentalism… All that stands between our great country and them is a weak kneed president drunk on his own adulation, but worse a president who favors their opinions and views over what is best for the American people…
Barack Obama feels that America owes the world a debt… He feels that Global Warming is a real crisis and has been emboldened by his newly acquired Nobel Prize.
What did America get by taking candy from this stranger?
On August 10th 1981 the severed head of a 6-year-old boy by the name of Adam Walsh was found in a Vero Beach, Florida canal… His remains were never recovered.
Even though my generation who was raised on the true story TV mini series of Adam Walsh’s terrible kidnapping in the 80’s, we haven’t seemed to have taken anything away from the repeating of that cliché…
Don’t take Candy from strangers… seems simple enough. However, in November 2008 the American people hungry for proof that they were not the bigoted people that the Left of this country slander them as elected a stranger… a marketed black American that delivered a confident smile, a GQ look, and a handful of candy referred to as “Hope and Change”….
In December of this year in Copenhagen there is a summit planned to try to solve the believed issue of Global Warming (despite the almost 9 year cold trend that has contradicted all Global Warming computer models)… However this summit has with it a sting that wont effect any climate that has to do with weather but instead change the economic climate of the world in an irreversible forfeiting of sovereignty by the U.S. African and Latin countries have draw up a plan of a world government that would have jurisdiction over the carbon emissions of ANY country (including the U.S.) further that the larger industrial countries must pay reparations to developing countries for “damaging the earth”…
It goes without saying that in general the most depraved of all countries are in those conditions not because of Global Warming but because of their grossly corrupt governments… Africa and Latin America have more natural resources at their disposal than any other developed country yet there almost systematic transfer of power from warlord to dictator to thug keeps their countries from ever becoming anything other than third-world charity magnets… To add insult to injury to the abused people of these countries their loss of life, lack of food and general impoverished state are used to demonstrate the desperate need for these reparations yet, it is in Africa that the very environmentalist who use the photos of these people to create sympathy with one hand, and with the other deny them the use of DDT and pesticides for their crops. They do this by denying them aid if they do not abide by the strict rules environmentalists set… In Africa alone more than 50,000,000 people have died of malaria since the ban on DDT began…
In the U.S. there is a different contradiction… The United States has the will, the resources and the know-how to create a network of nuclear power plants that would decrease our “carbon footprint” by over 70% yet EVERY single environmental agency is against it. Rather than use 1 square mile for a power plant, they’d rather carpet the U.S. with towering windmills and 10’s of thousands of square miles of solar panels that require more water for cleaning than most small countries. Almost worse than that you have farms tearing out crops that could be used for food and planting corns and sugar field to get Federal subsidies for bio fuels. Ironically it takes 4 gallons of regular fuel to produce 1 gallon of bio-fuel. In fact if the “bio-fuel” industry had to run on bio-fuel it would be out of business before it started.
All the lies and contradictions of environmentalism aside the most striking of all is the shocking resemblance environmentalism has with good ol’ fashion communism.
How is it that the redistribution of wealth is the answer to what the Left feel is a “global crisis”?
More and more Obama officials are being outted as either former members of a communist party or out right describe their affections for communist leaders.
The United States is a land bless with prosperity because of the rights and liberties given to its citizens… But these rights and liberties will be stripped away by a world government lead by the most corrupt of third world countries who will tax us and cripple us in the name of environmentalism… All that stands between our great country and them is a weak kneed president drunk on his own adulation, but worse a president who favors their opinions and views over what is best for the American people…
Barack Obama feels that America owes the world a debt… He feels that Global Warming is a real crisis and has been emboldened by his newly acquired Nobel Prize.
What did America get by taking candy from this stranger?
On August 10th 1981 the severed head of a 6-year-old boy by the name of Adam Walsh was found in a Vero Beach, Florida canal… His remains were never recovered.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Defanging the Radical
The book that keeps getting talked about so much as the “Obama play book”,
Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” has been in my back pack for the past couple weeks… Like a snack I keep picking away at it, but like the wrong kind of snack its is sometimes too much to digest. This entry is not so much a book review as much as it is a warning of things to come…
“Rules for Radicals” is a freighting look into a delusional author’s distorted view of the world. To hear leaders today of the Democrat Party openly quote Alinsky or allow them selves to be deemed “alinkyites” without correction is even further reason to be afraid for the future. These casual associations being made by the Democratic leadership of far-Leftist ideologues is a new emboldened face of their party. It is nothing more than a showing of their un-American agenda and the comfort they feel they have with the climate of American people to show their true colors. Paul Alinsky by no hidden means in “Rules for Radicals” lists tactics for the misguided Left to dupe their fellow American people in believing the “anti-establishment/anti capitalism” vomit of the 60’s. At least Karl Marx was straight forward about his desire to overturn capitalism… Alinsky on the other hand, like the Democrat Party understands that their ideas are unpopular and realize they have to mask them to gain any popular support.
What motivates people like this to want to tear down the very society that gives them their definition of what a great country should be? Alinskyites and Alinsky him self use generalized statements that are and dishonest to their values of America’s past greatness as a motivating factor to “return” to those times. Yet America’s greatness was realized because of all the things these Leftists fools so adamantly abhor, like success, and free market capitalism, profit, and individual liberty. Alinsky foolishly accuses “the older generation” of being trapped in the machine of capitalism, projecting a degree of naïveté on them, believing that they cannot even see the tangled web they are in. He goes so far as to describe America as chasing false truths of the suburban nuclear family, implying that these people are forced into drugs and alcohol abuse to tranquilize the need they have for individuality that their choices don’t allow. Alinsky’s tactic is that of making his reader think that his or her family is the acception to the rule when in fact HIS description of the “trapped” family is. Ironically his call for individuality is instead a call for enslavement to a system where the logical conclusion is that of pure identity-less Communism or social-fascism.
As a unstable catalyst to his lies, he falsely empowers the most vulnerable of Americans, “the-ready-fire-aim” emotionally driven “youth” as ambassadors of “progress”, describing them as the audience to the destruction by apathy their parent inaugurate, bolstering their egos and playing on their narcissism to believe that they can see past the lies of the world around them. It’s further ironic that Alinsky was speaking to the baby boomer generation… a generation known for being born of not only our most patriotic Americans but also of a generation who sacrificed greatly for Liberty. He recruits a generation of children who have basked in the sun of their forbearer’s successes without any knowledge of the work it took to get to that destination. These are his soldiers of an all too familiar call for undefined “change”… to change the system by infiltrating the system. Then in doing so you initiate “change”… However, change according to the theories of what you (the radical) feels is needed… not what actually is needed, if anything…
Some might say that this process is democracy at work but they would be terribly mistaken. Democracy is the free exchange of ideologies, policies, and open debate where the public or electoral college can determine which of the candidates would run the country better according to their own principles. Democracy can only thrive in an environment where actual ideas can exchange. Yet in Alinsky’s world, and in Obama’s world (the radical‘s tactic) is one that uses recognizable accepted Conservative phraseology like "competition" and "choice" to distract Americans and disguise the far-Left/Statists agenda of equality over liberty... America was founded on individuals who were given the rights and opportunity to succeed...
If in fact "competition" and "choice" were a value to Democrats, why would they fight so venomously against competition in public schools by not supporting school vouchers when the public system is failing so badly? Why would they be against competition in the job market and abandon their racially based and gender based quotas? Why would they be against competition in Social Security and help privatizing retirement savings account programs so that people may be able to keep more of their money in their family rather it going to a government pot? Why would they want to regulate talk radio to silence views opposed to their own? Or, why would they be against deregulating health insurance so they can sell across state lines and ACTUALLY increase competition?
The reason is Democrats do not support these things because "competition" and "choice" are as far from their agenda as efficiency or success is from ANY government program. Which is why our founding fathers worked to create a LIMTED government one that is very apposed to the monster Democrats since F.D.R. have created.
These Leftists live in a made up world where lying about their end goals is just a means to an end and is a small wrong compared to the vast crimes against humanity they feel capitalism has committed… Ironically most of what they oppose is the product of a market contaminate by quasi-socialist policies that redistribute wealth and allow for corruption in vast government bureaucracies. They fight a disproportionate war against reason in that to lie or hide the true motivation for their initiatives is justifiable to their cause. Truth is not a value to the Left. It only stands as an inconvenience to their “progress”. They feel they know better than the individual American who believes working hard, saving money, and being responsible for them self is the most patriotic of choices. In fact they despise those Americans and accuse them as being part of the “angry Right”… They take the imaginary position of “Government knows better than you” believing their own lies and excuse away those who strive for financial stability and a comfortable life. These delusions are nothing less than religious as they are not at all diminished when confronted by factual evidence that would argue other wise. But, it is in these delusions that we see the chaos these Statists wish to create. They know that it is in chaos that Americans will become desperate for change… no matter how foreign to our American heritage.
Today’s Left cannot compete on issues because they know that they do not have the public’s immediate interests in mind. If you look at Social Security, welfare, Income tax… All have become swollen mutated monsters from the original plan of each initiative. Medicare is more than 10 times what its was predicted to be and is going bankrupt while giving the lowest standard of health care to its users.
The Democrats agenda is a slow poison. They start with just a little and build on it like water slowly boiling. Obama in a 2002 speech said that getting to Universal Health Care by way of a public option and it would be a long road claiming the need for little steps… Juxtapose that to what he is saying today that Universal healthcare is not the goal but “competition” is… Which is just like his claim at the State of the Union where he said he was “not for a bigger government” while he is continuing to increasing its size more than any other president before him… The Left (including our current President) claim to love America but only see a history of imperialism. They claim to be patriotic yet believe that America was not only founded on but is ramped with racism. They claim to value The Constitution yet completely dismiss any ideas of a Creator from which we derive The Bill of Rights from, further saying that it is a “living breathing document” rendering its wisdom and direction completely relative according to its interpreter. They claim to stand for freedom but work to silence through government fiat anyone who freely tries to practice those freedoms apposed to their own. They claim to love democracy yet slander their opponents to the point of humiliation and a retreat from public life. They claim to work for the people but then create the intricate bureaucracies and unions that act as cattle chutes so that people only go where they allow.
The Democratic Party is blindly against anything that Republicans want. Any one Republicans elect is considered by The Democrats to be racist, a bigot, homophobic, an “Uncle-Tom”, xenophobic, sexist, or any other slanderous title you can give someone… They have become experts at projecting their faults unto Republicans by demanding that Republicans are guilty of everything that they themselves actually are doing with zero accountability from most every media source. The Democrat Party have become profits who predict the doom they themselves orchestrate.
They claim that the Republican Party is a party of racism yet the Republican Part’s main charter at its conception was to abolish slavery, further that historically Democrats have stood in the way of every vote for Black equality. From The Emancipation Proclamation to Brown vs. Board of Education… Almost all votes in The House or The Senate that concerned the equality of minorities or women were party line votes with Democrats on the wrong side of history. Every bill brought to the House since the birth our nation from the Dred Scott decision to voting against the Civil Rights Act; anything that subjected black Americans was sponsored by Democrats. On June 10th 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat) began an over 14-hour filibuster opposing the legislation for Civil Rights Act. Robert Byrd still serves as a senator to this day for the Democrat Party.
The Democrats have slandered the Republicans, calling them “a party of tyranny”. Yet, it is Republican dogma that government is the problem and work toward reducing government keeping it out of people’s lives and wallets. Contrary to that set of principles, the Democrats see all solutions with a larger government but has yet to produce one efficient government program. Today’s voter has to decide between a party who’s philosophies are contrary to the lessons of history, that government is the answer or the philosophies of a party who’s policies have built this land of opportunity, the party that believes government is the problem, the party that believes individual responsibility is the answer.
Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” has been in my back pack for the past couple weeks… Like a snack I keep picking away at it, but like the wrong kind of snack its is sometimes too much to digest. This entry is not so much a book review as much as it is a warning of things to come…
“Rules for Radicals” is a freighting look into a delusional author’s distorted view of the world. To hear leaders today of the Democrat Party openly quote Alinsky or allow them selves to be deemed “alinkyites” without correction is even further reason to be afraid for the future. These casual associations being made by the Democratic leadership of far-Leftist ideologues is a new emboldened face of their party. It is nothing more than a showing of their un-American agenda and the comfort they feel they have with the climate of American people to show their true colors. Paul Alinsky by no hidden means in “Rules for Radicals” lists tactics for the misguided Left to dupe their fellow American people in believing the “anti-establishment/anti capitalism” vomit of the 60’s. At least Karl Marx was straight forward about his desire to overturn capitalism… Alinsky on the other hand, like the Democrat Party understands that their ideas are unpopular and realize they have to mask them to gain any popular support.
What motivates people like this to want to tear down the very society that gives them their definition of what a great country should be? Alinskyites and Alinsky him self use generalized statements that are and dishonest to their values of America’s past greatness as a motivating factor to “return” to those times. Yet America’s greatness was realized because of all the things these Leftists fools so adamantly abhor, like success, and free market capitalism, profit, and individual liberty. Alinsky foolishly accuses “the older generation” of being trapped in the machine of capitalism, projecting a degree of naïveté on them, believing that they cannot even see the tangled web they are in. He goes so far as to describe America as chasing false truths of the suburban nuclear family, implying that these people are forced into drugs and alcohol abuse to tranquilize the need they have for individuality that their choices don’t allow. Alinsky’s tactic is that of making his reader think that his or her family is the acception to the rule when in fact HIS description of the “trapped” family is. Ironically his call for individuality is instead a call for enslavement to a system where the logical conclusion is that of pure identity-less Communism or social-fascism.
As a unstable catalyst to his lies, he falsely empowers the most vulnerable of Americans, “the-ready-fire-aim” emotionally driven “youth” as ambassadors of “progress”, describing them as the audience to the destruction by apathy their parent inaugurate, bolstering their egos and playing on their narcissism to believe that they can see past the lies of the world around them. It’s further ironic that Alinsky was speaking to the baby boomer generation… a generation known for being born of not only our most patriotic Americans but also of a generation who sacrificed greatly for Liberty. He recruits a generation of children who have basked in the sun of their forbearer’s successes without any knowledge of the work it took to get to that destination. These are his soldiers of an all too familiar call for undefined “change”… to change the system by infiltrating the system. Then in doing so you initiate “change”… However, change according to the theories of what you (the radical) feels is needed… not what actually is needed, if anything…
Some might say that this process is democracy at work but they would be terribly mistaken. Democracy is the free exchange of ideologies, policies, and open debate where the public or electoral college can determine which of the candidates would run the country better according to their own principles. Democracy can only thrive in an environment where actual ideas can exchange. Yet in Alinsky’s world, and in Obama’s world (the radical‘s tactic) is one that uses recognizable accepted Conservative phraseology like "competition" and "choice" to distract Americans and disguise the far-Left/Statists agenda of equality over liberty... America was founded on individuals who were given the rights and opportunity to succeed...
If in fact "competition" and "choice" were a value to Democrats, why would they fight so venomously against competition in public schools by not supporting school vouchers when the public system is failing so badly? Why would they be against competition in the job market and abandon their racially based and gender based quotas? Why would they be against competition in Social Security and help privatizing retirement savings account programs so that people may be able to keep more of their money in their family rather it going to a government pot? Why would they want to regulate talk radio to silence views opposed to their own? Or, why would they be against deregulating health insurance so they can sell across state lines and ACTUALLY increase competition?
The reason is Democrats do not support these things because "competition" and "choice" are as far from their agenda as efficiency or success is from ANY government program. Which is why our founding fathers worked to create a LIMTED government one that is very apposed to the monster Democrats since F.D.R. have created.
These Leftists live in a made up world where lying about their end goals is just a means to an end and is a small wrong compared to the vast crimes against humanity they feel capitalism has committed… Ironically most of what they oppose is the product of a market contaminate by quasi-socialist policies that redistribute wealth and allow for corruption in vast government bureaucracies. They fight a disproportionate war against reason in that to lie or hide the true motivation for their initiatives is justifiable to their cause. Truth is not a value to the Left. It only stands as an inconvenience to their “progress”. They feel they know better than the individual American who believes working hard, saving money, and being responsible for them self is the most patriotic of choices. In fact they despise those Americans and accuse them as being part of the “angry Right”… They take the imaginary position of “Government knows better than you” believing their own lies and excuse away those who strive for financial stability and a comfortable life. These delusions are nothing less than religious as they are not at all diminished when confronted by factual evidence that would argue other wise. But, it is in these delusions that we see the chaos these Statists wish to create. They know that it is in chaos that Americans will become desperate for change… no matter how foreign to our American heritage.
Today’s Left cannot compete on issues because they know that they do not have the public’s immediate interests in mind. If you look at Social Security, welfare, Income tax… All have become swollen mutated monsters from the original plan of each initiative. Medicare is more than 10 times what its was predicted to be and is going bankrupt while giving the lowest standard of health care to its users.
The Democrats agenda is a slow poison. They start with just a little and build on it like water slowly boiling. Obama in a 2002 speech said that getting to Universal Health Care by way of a public option and it would be a long road claiming the need for little steps… Juxtapose that to what he is saying today that Universal healthcare is not the goal but “competition” is… Which is just like his claim at the State of the Union where he said he was “not for a bigger government” while he is continuing to increasing its size more than any other president before him… The Left (including our current President) claim to love America but only see a history of imperialism. They claim to be patriotic yet believe that America was not only founded on but is ramped with racism. They claim to value The Constitution yet completely dismiss any ideas of a Creator from which we derive The Bill of Rights from, further saying that it is a “living breathing document” rendering its wisdom and direction completely relative according to its interpreter. They claim to stand for freedom but work to silence through government fiat anyone who freely tries to practice those freedoms apposed to their own. They claim to love democracy yet slander their opponents to the point of humiliation and a retreat from public life. They claim to work for the people but then create the intricate bureaucracies and unions that act as cattle chutes so that people only go where they allow.
The Democratic Party is blindly against anything that Republicans want. Any one Republicans elect is considered by The Democrats to be racist, a bigot, homophobic, an “Uncle-Tom”, xenophobic, sexist, or any other slanderous title you can give someone… They have become experts at projecting their faults unto Republicans by demanding that Republicans are guilty of everything that they themselves actually are doing with zero accountability from most every media source. The Democrat Party have become profits who predict the doom they themselves orchestrate.
They claim that the Republican Party is a party of racism yet the Republican Part’s main charter at its conception was to abolish slavery, further that historically Democrats have stood in the way of every vote for Black equality. From The Emancipation Proclamation to Brown vs. Board of Education… Almost all votes in The House or The Senate that concerned the equality of minorities or women were party line votes with Democrats on the wrong side of history. Every bill brought to the House since the birth our nation from the Dred Scott decision to voting against the Civil Rights Act; anything that subjected black Americans was sponsored by Democrats. On June 10th 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat) began an over 14-hour filibuster opposing the legislation for Civil Rights Act. Robert Byrd still serves as a senator to this day for the Democrat Party.
The Democrats have slandered the Republicans, calling them “a party of tyranny”. Yet, it is Republican dogma that government is the problem and work toward reducing government keeping it out of people’s lives and wallets. Contrary to that set of principles, the Democrats see all solutions with a larger government but has yet to produce one efficient government program. Today’s voter has to decide between a party who’s philosophies are contrary to the lessons of history, that government is the answer or the philosophies of a party who’s policies have built this land of opportunity, the party that believes government is the problem, the party that believes individual responsibility is the answer.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Killing in the Name of Peace
Killing in the Name of Peace
For my friend, “native son”
Twitter has many uses… so many that naming them would be pointless. Personally I may be a bit on the irresponsible side with the postings I write, but my goal is to make a point; I try to get people to stop and think… I purposely hit on taboos or thoughts that the everyday person may think but doesn’t say. The other day I wrote a post saying: “Iran wants to blow up Israel...Can someone please bring back assassinations? God! It would only be a short list.” Followed by: “I'd love to start with Castro! Then Chavez... Maybe throw some other commis in there”
I was immediately challenged asking how I can advocate the killing of one of God’s creations?” I’m sure the idea of assassination is even worse to anyone that disagrees with me. Beyond that initial challenge I was quoted some scripture all of which supported an idea of pacifism. The first being Romans 12:19 “…‘Vengeance is mine’ says the Lord…” And of course Mathew 5:39, “…Turn the other cheek…”
I don’t mean to discount those arguments and I completely understand that there are more than just those verses that call for what would sounds like pacifism. Yet God does not expect pacifism…
I feel I know the bible well and thought that defending the idea of assassinating a tyrant could be defended in the bible easily because of the value God puts on each and every life. But it can’t. Yes there are times when we are expected to stop a crime or an injustice or to protect those who cannot protect them selves with lethal force if necessary, but premeditated murder of a person is not what we are released biblically to do. Capital punishment and war have an accountability and are often consequences after a sentence. (obviously there are corrupt countries and powers who deviate from moral action) that is another matter…
Yes there are areas in the Old Testament that called for capital punishment, there are kings that if killed could of drastically improved the lives of the Israelites. But, all matters of ending someone’s life in the bible was specifically ordained by God. For all capital punishments there were stipulations that needed to be addressed. There was no grey area, but where there was disagreement there was accountability. Even in war, it was God who said when wars were to be fought. David seemed to have special favor with God. Yet even in that favor God did not allow David to build His temple:
1 Chronicles 22
6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel.
7 And David said to Solomon: “My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; 8 but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days.
God sent David on most of those wars. In reading this passage you might wonder why God penalized David for following His direction. However, David went beyond God’s direction. The blood on David’s hands was a product of David’s zealousness for God. David killed more men than God commanded to satisfy his own appetite and not God’s plan. The Temple was a symbol of that. God did not ask for a temple yet David felt He should have one. God answered David’s request but through his son and not through David. David’s downfall was his not looking to see God’s plan but instead forging his own; though he felt is was for God, it still was not in God’s plan.
David’s story gives an example of places God has not ordained deaths even to enemies. But in the Book of Daniel we see a picture of God’s perspective on evil rulers:
Daniel 5
13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king spoke, and said to Daniel, “Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives from Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah? 14 I have heard of you, that the Spirit of God is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not give the interpretation of the thing. 16 And I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations and explain enigmas. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
17 Then Daniel answered, and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another; yet I will read the writing to the king, and make known to him the interpretation. 18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom and majesty, glory and honor. 19 And because of the majesty that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished, he kept alive; whomever he wished, he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. 21 Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses.
22 “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this. 23 And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.
25 “And this is the inscription that was written:
MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN
26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; 27 TEKEK: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” 29 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
It is God who determines who leads and who dies. He allows evil men to rule but also numbers their days. Every man will be accountable for his actions and it is God’s justice that we wait on. It is our faith in Him that we believe that the evil men in this world will find their judgment day…
So I stand corrected. Though evil men like Castro live beyond great men like Regan. I have to believe that on some level it is a picture of God’s mercy that they have more time to turn from their ways. It is only this life that we can make this choice. After it we all will stand before God.
I owe my friend “native son” and apology and a sincere thanks you. I am happy to know that I can still learn something…
For my friend, “native son”
Twitter has many uses… so many that naming them would be pointless. Personally I may be a bit on the irresponsible side with the postings I write, but my goal is to make a point; I try to get people to stop and think… I purposely hit on taboos or thoughts that the everyday person may think but doesn’t say. The other day I wrote a post saying: “Iran wants to blow up Israel...Can someone please bring back assassinations? God! It would only be a short list.” Followed by: “I'd love to start with Castro! Then Chavez... Maybe throw some other commis in there”
I was immediately challenged asking how I can advocate the killing of one of God’s creations?” I’m sure the idea of assassination is even worse to anyone that disagrees with me. Beyond that initial challenge I was quoted some scripture all of which supported an idea of pacifism. The first being Romans 12:19 “…‘Vengeance is mine’ says the Lord…” And of course Mathew 5:39, “…Turn the other cheek…”
I don’t mean to discount those arguments and I completely understand that there are more than just those verses that call for what would sounds like pacifism. Yet God does not expect pacifism…
I feel I know the bible well and thought that defending the idea of assassinating a tyrant could be defended in the bible easily because of the value God puts on each and every life. But it can’t. Yes there are times when we are expected to stop a crime or an injustice or to protect those who cannot protect them selves with lethal force if necessary, but premeditated murder of a person is not what we are released biblically to do. Capital punishment and war have an accountability and are often consequences after a sentence. (obviously there are corrupt countries and powers who deviate from moral action) that is another matter…
Yes there are areas in the Old Testament that called for capital punishment, there are kings that if killed could of drastically improved the lives of the Israelites. But, all matters of ending someone’s life in the bible was specifically ordained by God. For all capital punishments there were stipulations that needed to be addressed. There was no grey area, but where there was disagreement there was accountability. Even in war, it was God who said when wars were to be fought. David seemed to have special favor with God. Yet even in that favor God did not allow David to build His temple:
1 Chronicles 22
6 Then he called for his son Solomon, and charged him to build a house for the LORD God of Israel.
7 And David said to Solomon: “My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build a house to the name of the LORD my God; 8 but the word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have made great wars; you shall not build a house for My name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in My sight. 9 Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days.
God sent David on most of those wars. In reading this passage you might wonder why God penalized David for following His direction. However, David went beyond God’s direction. The blood on David’s hands was a product of David’s zealousness for God. David killed more men than God commanded to satisfy his own appetite and not God’s plan. The Temple was a symbol of that. God did not ask for a temple yet David felt He should have one. God answered David’s request but through his son and not through David. David’s downfall was his not looking to see God’s plan but instead forging his own; though he felt is was for God, it still was not in God’s plan.
David’s story gives an example of places God has not ordained deaths even to enemies. But in the Book of Daniel we see a picture of God’s perspective on evil rulers:
Daniel 5
13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king spoke, and said to Daniel, “Are you that Daniel who is one of the captives from Judah, whom my father the king brought from Judah? 14 I have heard of you, that the Spirit of God is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing and make known to me its interpretation, but they could not give the interpretation of the thing. 16 And I have heard of you, that you can give interpretations and explain enigmas. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
17 Then Daniel answered, and said before the king, “Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another; yet I will read the writing to the king, and make known to him the interpretation. 18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father a kingdom and majesty, glory and honor. 19 And because of the majesty that He gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him. Whomever he wished, he executed; whomever he wished, he kept alive; whomever he wished, he set up; and whomever he wished, he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him. 21 Then he was driven from the sons of men, his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild donkeys. They fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till he knew that the Most High God rules in the kingdom of men, and appoints over it whomever He chooses.
22 “But you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, although you knew all this. 23 And you have lifted yourself up against the Lord of heaven. They have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your lords, your wives and your concubines, have drunk wine from them. And you have praised the gods of silver and gold, bronze and iron, wood and stone, which do not see or hear or know; and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways, you have not glorified. 24 Then the fingers of the hand were sent from Him, and this writing was written.
25 “And this is the inscription that was written:
MENE MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN
26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; 27 TEKEK: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; 28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” 29 Then Belshazzar gave the command, and they clothed Daniel with purple and put a chain of gold around his neck, and made a proclamation concerning him that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
It is God who determines who leads and who dies. He allows evil men to rule but also numbers their days. Every man will be accountable for his actions and it is God’s justice that we wait on. It is our faith in Him that we believe that the evil men in this world will find their judgment day…
So I stand corrected. Though evil men like Castro live beyond great men like Regan. I have to believe that on some level it is a picture of God’s mercy that they have more time to turn from their ways. It is only this life that we can make this choice. After it we all will stand before God.
I owe my friend “native son” and apology and a sincere thanks you. I am happy to know that I can still learn something…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
