Let me get this straight, on Monday, January 19, 2009, we were disjointed, separated. We could not volunteer, do community service, we could not help our "fellow man". We hated, we fought. To quote Chicken Little, "the sky was falling".
On Tuesday, January 19, 2009, at approximately 11:00 AM Central Time, everything miraculously changed. We came together. We got along (finally, Rodney!!). We could volunteer. We were unselfish. The lion laid down with the lamb. The universe was in balance again.
Good works are good works. If I'm starving, and you bring me a sandwich, I don't care why you are doing it!!! Thank you very much!!
In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus told a parable about helping people. He basically said to do it. He was pretty clear about what happened to those who did not. Considering this, God bless everyone who helps his or her "fellow man" ("fellow person" for those who need political correctness).
As a Christian, I must reflect on another of Jesus' parables, the vineyard owner and the workers (Matthew 20-1-16). To this author, Jesus was saying, "do what is right, and don't worry about others. Some will 'work' longer than others. You will all be paid the same. That is for Me to determine, not you."
I do not intend to degrade anyone's service to others. My concern rests in the motivating factor.
For example, how many times has this happened throughout history. The boyfriend breaks up with the girlfriend. Upset, she's going to "show him". I'm going to work out, get in shape, and he'll see what he missed!!!
Next day, she goes to the gym. After a few weeks, she starts to lose some weight, firm things up.
As time passes, he moves on; she moves on. As she cares less and less about what "he thinks", she has less and less passion to run five miles. Soon she has a new boyfriend, and the urgency to get in shape has fizzled. So much for being a super model.
At the start of this week I heard and read people asking if I had "done [my] service for Obama. I did mine; have you done yours?" Wh-wh-wh-wh-wwwwwwhaaaaat????!!!! Stop-the-press!!! Did you just ask if I did...my...service...for...Obama????!!!!!
In the words of Doc Holiday, "Forgive me if I don't shake hands."
I'll make this short. Barak Obama is a man, a human being. Human beings fail. They are not always reliable. While some now want to change the 22nd Amendment, Obama should only be in office for a maximum of eight years. For those recently inspired minions, what happens in 9 years? What if your candidate is not in the White House? Is it back to the statos quo? Is "[the] Dream" over?
Millions of Christians have learned this lesson the hard way. They follow a pastor, a preacher, a televangelist. They get juiced. They send in their money. They get involved, feed the starving, clothe the naked, help the poor....what's that, flip back to that last channel. What??!! He was caught in a hotel room with a prostitute. What??? He has been indicted for tax fraud.
Sometimes, things aren't so dramatic. No exposes, no tabloid smut. The pastor simply moves on, starts a new church, takes on a new ministry. This is where the "rubber hits the road" and what's inside the heart is revealed.
Many stop sending the money, stop feeding the hungry. They withdraw. Their service suffers. Soon these pilgrims are back where they started, only this time a new-found distrust and bitterness walls any future endeavors.
The point is a bit cliche, but it is true: "Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow." He is the "Alpha and the Omega", the "Beginning and the End" (Revelation 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). He will not fail us. When we do things for Him, as when setting up a network, we eliminate possible points of failure.
I caution those who wait for ideal conditions in order to take action. They rarely exist and are often mistakenly identified. Keeping the faith means knowing where to direct it. Keep up the good work, but sometimes the "why" is more powerful than the "what" if one is to have continued success.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Here, Here!!!
Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton wrote a prolific article recently. It is a clairvoyant look into the political landscape and how it will change drastically, how this great nation will morph into something unrecognizable to its founders. It's "long", but it is highly recommended, especially for those who still care: "The Obama presidency: Here comes Socialism".
Friday, January 23, 2009
Good Call...
This is a short one. Many out there, most self-professed Christians, chastised conservatives and other Christians for, like this author did, suggesting that abortion was an important issue when considering a political candidate. We were "single-issue voters". Our emotions were manipulated by the Republican party.
Always Obama supporters, these informed voters contended that more important issues existed, that the Office of the President didn't have the power to affect the abortion landscape.
This argument was ignorant. It revealed one's lack of understanding about the structure of the US government. I would ask "them" to tell me what law made abortion legal. "They" didn't know. That's because there wasn't one.
"Then what makes abortion 'legal'?" I would continue. More often than not, "they" didn't know. It was a Supreme Court decision (Roe v Wade).
Oh, I could see them thinking.
"Who appoints the Supreme Court Justices?" was my next question. Blank stare. That's right, the President of the United States.
Enough of the civics lesson. In Obama's first few days, the Executive Orders (that means exactly how it sounds for those who slept during Political Science 101, no voting just an "order") have continued to flow. One of them, signed today, allows the federal government to use tax dollars to fund abortions overseas. That's right, civics specialists, in less than a week, the President has issued (actually repealed a previous Executive Order) a decree to fund abortions in other countries, as if here wasn't enough. Don't believe me, read the article: "Obama Lifts Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding".
One of my favorite professors in college said, "The problem with free speech is knowing who to listen to..." He was right.
Always Obama supporters, these informed voters contended that more important issues existed, that the Office of the President didn't have the power to affect the abortion landscape.
This argument was ignorant. It revealed one's lack of understanding about the structure of the US government. I would ask "them" to tell me what law made abortion legal. "They" didn't know. That's because there wasn't one.
"Then what makes abortion 'legal'?" I would continue. More often than not, "they" didn't know. It was a Supreme Court decision (Roe v Wade).
Oh, I could see them thinking.
"Who appoints the Supreme Court Justices?" was my next question. Blank stare. That's right, the President of the United States.
Enough of the civics lesson. In Obama's first few days, the Executive Orders (that means exactly how it sounds for those who slept during Political Science 101, no voting just an "order") have continued to flow. One of them, signed today, allows the federal government to use tax dollars to fund abortions overseas. That's right, civics specialists, in less than a week, the President has issued (actually repealed a previous Executive Order) a decree to fund abortions in other countries, as if here wasn't enough. Don't believe me, read the article: "Obama Lifts Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding".
One of my favorite professors in college said, "The problem with free speech is knowing who to listen to..." He was right.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Subtle
Barack Obama is different. I don't mean that the same way Joe Biden meant when he said, "...[Obama is] the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" ("Biden's description of Obama draws scrutiny" from CNN). Not sure what that was supposed to mean.
I don't mean it the same way that David Ehrenstein, a liberal editorial writer, meant it when he wrote in the Los Angeles Times that Senator Obama was the "magic negro" ("Obama the 'Magic Negro'"). Click the link, he tries to explain what he meant.
What I mean by different is that, unlike other liberal democrats who spew forth hatred-filled accusations, Obama speaks in a very positive, professional, and inspirational manner.
Now if you have read this blog faithfully, you know that this author does not want Obama anywhere near the White House because he opposes the President-Elect's policies. Life is life, and we roll with the punches. But Barack Obama is different. He is not a whinny liberal; he is a liberal. He is not a black leader; he is a leader. He has mastered the art of promoting liberal/socialist agendas with a mirage of conservatism. He is "Reaganesque" at times. Obama's hypnotic rhetoric has already pulled many so-called conservative Republicans to his side. It's like a Jedi mind-trick.
...
Today, I started with a similar Saturday morning routine. I went to the gas station down the street to get a coffee. The gentleman in front of me paid with one of those cool "Iowa Credit Cards". (This is what I call the Iowa EBT card. I used to see people in front of me buying all kinds of groceries, more than I could afford, and think, what a pretty Iowa landscape on their credit card.)
The gentleman purchased a 16 oz Mountain Dew, a 20 oz Powerade, a bag of Doritos, and a sandwich. He punched in his pin, took his "groceries", and went on with his day.
I continued my routine with a trip to HyVee. Got a danish and a bismark, this time noticing a family piling up the groceries on the conveyor belt. It wasn't my business, but the gas-station experience had me curious. There it was, another "Iowa Credit Card". Maybe I wasn't so nosy after all since, as a tax-payer, I was a financial supporter of those groceries.
It appeared to be a husband and wife with two kids. Now, God-bless them. I want them to eat. I don't want their kids to starve. A quick glance showed a better selection to qualify as "needs" than Doritos and Mountain Dew, but that is really not what this entry is about.
What I observed this morning made me think about slavery. The gentleman in the store, the family in the grocery store; they all had black skin.
Recently, I finished the book America: The Last Best Hope. A large section of this book chronicled the suffering of Africans, kidnapped from their homeland and forced to exist as animals subservient to European settlers. This book reinforced my perception of America's historical tension that almost broke "The Union".
I see, as do many other real historians, the linear shape of a carat (^). The Founders were aware of the problem, most of them detested slavery acknowledging that it violated the very principals on which they warranted their detachment from England. Still, similar to the abortion view of many Christians today, they considered it to be a hill that was too great to climb. They attempted to contain the infection hoping that those who followed would extinguish the fire.
The fire only found new fuel to burn. It grew. It grew until in 1862, Abraham Lincoln had no choice but to use every resource available to stop it, to entirely put an end to it. He freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. He made slavery illegal. As a side note, I wonder how many detractors said, "...that making it illegal would not stop it, they'll still find a way to do it."
I see this very moment in history as the top of the carat, the highpoint in the conflict. A simple understanding of American history reveals that the prejudicial injustice did not end in 1863. They did find another way to "do it".
The "other ways" are too numerous to list here; however, the shear blatancy has lessened. African-Americans in the 1960's were treated horribly; however, it would be difficult to argue that it was at the same level as those who lived pre-civil war. While a disgrace and inhumane, those forced to sit in the back of the bus had more liberty than those sold as literal property one hundred years earlier. I make this comparison to support the premise that 1860 was on the right down-slope of the carat shape.
I wonder, however, if America's racial injustices continued downward after the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century. Are African-American's truly free? It is this author's opinion that many still are not, they just don't know it. The white slave master, cracking the whip, has been replaced by the white, but many times black, politicians suppressing their freedoms with emotional rhetoric and government programs. It is an unconscious, yet willful submission.
A century after Fredrick Douglas petitioned President Lincoln to grant full citizenship to slaves rather than relocating them to South America, Martin Luther King traveled a similar path. He believed that all people should be treated the same, that regardless of one's color, he or she should enjoy all the privileges of being an American citizen and all the privileges of being a human being. Unfortunately, many of those that followed Dr. King took his message, repackaged it, and then redistributed it as though it was the original. It was not.
The new message said this: "Life is unfair if you are black. No matter what, you do not have a chance. Because you do not have a chance, you need me, you need the government to take care of you. You will not be able to accomplish the great things that other people accomplish who have different skin color. Those who do are not 'authentic'. They are 'sellouts', 'Uncle Toms'."
This heretic deviation from Dr. King's message was never propagated to help people. It was a new tool to enslave them. If people think that they need you, you can tell them what to do. They will obey. They will give you power.
Don't believe me? Do a Google search on Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Include words like fraud, extortion, investigation, and shake-down. Have a good chunk of time blocked because there will be lots of reading.
Men like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton need racism in the United States. They need those with black skin to think that they "can't make it". They need those votes. They need that money. They need that power.
One would have thought that a civil rights leader like Jessie Jackson would have celebrated the possibility of the "First Black President" (a title Bill Clinton and others bestowed on himself). Instead he said that he wanted to "cut his nuts off" (see video here). Why? Why did you want to "cut [the senator's] nuts off", Mr. Jackson? Two reasons: 1) He didn't want to share the power, 2) Obama's election would have diluted Mr. Jackson's power.
Obama's ascension to the "highest office in the land" flies in the face of Jackson's, and other politicians who have exploited minorities for decades, message: "That you can't do it without me." Now, when Jesse goes in front of the cameras to tell America that it hates black people, a President-Elect Obama will mean that Jackson will only lose credibility rather than pad his pockets. "Hates black people?", they say. "Why, a majority of voters just elected a man with black skin to be president. I don't know what Mr. Jackson is talking about..."
...
Today, the man in the gas station and the couple at the grocery store; they didn't seem to be missing any body parts. I didn't see or hear anything that suggested any handicaps. Contrary to the popular opinion espoused by southern white slave-owners in the 19th and 20th centuries, this author believes that God created all races equally. God choose some to have white skin, some to have black, etc. etc. That is the only difference.
Why did these folks need "food stamps"? Can this author possibly know? No, he cannot. Each instance may have circumstances that totally invalidates mentioning it here as an anecdote.
I couldn't help but wonder, however, was it because they have been told that being successful meant being "sell-outs". Was it because that they were raised to feel helpless in a political environment that says, "you can't make it, you need politicians to take care of you." Had they really accessed their true potential, or had years of calculated and manipulative political propaganda dulled their sense of ability?
Barack Obama is different. Hopefully, those labeled by politicians as "minorities" to serve their agenda find his example inspirational and tune out the "worm-tongue" drones of the Jessie Jacksons and the Al Sharptons.
...
One final question: Is Barack Obama a Jedi?
It wasn't until Star Wars: Episode III that the "Republic" discovered that the "Chancellor", to whom it had given emergency absolute power to ensure safety, was actually the "Dark Sith Lord". By then it was too late. Yes, Barack is different. He believes all American citizens should be treated equally. No quotas. No Affirmitive Action. He aims to eliminate all elements of racial divides; he won't shackle one ethnic group while others live freely to "pursue happiness". It is all citizens that should be dependent upon and subservient to the government, not just "minorities".
I don't mean it the same way that David Ehrenstein, a liberal editorial writer, meant it when he wrote in the Los Angeles Times that Senator Obama was the "magic negro" ("Obama the 'Magic Negro'"). Click the link, he tries to explain what he meant.
What I mean by different is that, unlike other liberal democrats who spew forth hatred-filled accusations, Obama speaks in a very positive, professional, and inspirational manner.
Now if you have read this blog faithfully, you know that this author does not want Obama anywhere near the White House because he opposes the President-Elect's policies. Life is life, and we roll with the punches. But Barack Obama is different. He is not a whinny liberal; he is a liberal. He is not a black leader; he is a leader. He has mastered the art of promoting liberal/socialist agendas with a mirage of conservatism. He is "Reaganesque" at times. Obama's hypnotic rhetoric has already pulled many so-called conservative Republicans to his side. It's like a Jedi mind-trick.
...
Today, I started with a similar Saturday morning routine. I went to the gas station down the street to get a coffee. The gentleman in front of me paid with one of those cool "Iowa Credit Cards". (This is what I call the Iowa EBT card. I used to see people in front of me buying all kinds of groceries, more than I could afford, and think, what a pretty Iowa landscape on their credit card.)
The gentleman purchased a 16 oz Mountain Dew, a 20 oz Powerade, a bag of Doritos, and a sandwich. He punched in his pin, took his "groceries", and went on with his day.
I continued my routine with a trip to HyVee. Got a danish and a bismark, this time noticing a family piling up the groceries on the conveyor belt. It wasn't my business, but the gas-station experience had me curious. There it was, another "Iowa Credit Card". Maybe I wasn't so nosy after all since, as a tax-payer, I was a financial supporter of those groceries.
It appeared to be a husband and wife with two kids. Now, God-bless them. I want them to eat. I don't want their kids to starve. A quick glance showed a better selection to qualify as "needs" than Doritos and Mountain Dew, but that is really not what this entry is about.
What I observed this morning made me think about slavery. The gentleman in the store, the family in the grocery store; they all had black skin.
Recently, I finished the book America: The Last Best Hope. A large section of this book chronicled the suffering of Africans, kidnapped from their homeland and forced to exist as animals subservient to European settlers. This book reinforced my perception of America's historical tension that almost broke "The Union".
I see, as do many other real historians, the linear shape of a carat (^). The Founders were aware of the problem, most of them detested slavery acknowledging that it violated the very principals on which they warranted their detachment from England. Still, similar to the abortion view of many Christians today, they considered it to be a hill that was too great to climb. They attempted to contain the infection hoping that those who followed would extinguish the fire.
The fire only found new fuel to burn. It grew. It grew until in 1862, Abraham Lincoln had no choice but to use every resource available to stop it, to entirely put an end to it. He freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. He made slavery illegal. As a side note, I wonder how many detractors said, "...that making it illegal would not stop it, they'll still find a way to do it."
I see this very moment in history as the top of the carat, the highpoint in the conflict. A simple understanding of American history reveals that the prejudicial injustice did not end in 1863. They did find another way to "do it".
The "other ways" are too numerous to list here; however, the shear blatancy has lessened. African-Americans in the 1960's were treated horribly; however, it would be difficult to argue that it was at the same level as those who lived pre-civil war. While a disgrace and inhumane, those forced to sit in the back of the bus had more liberty than those sold as literal property one hundred years earlier. I make this comparison to support the premise that 1860 was on the right down-slope of the carat shape.
I wonder, however, if America's racial injustices continued downward after the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century. Are African-American's truly free? It is this author's opinion that many still are not, they just don't know it. The white slave master, cracking the whip, has been replaced by the white, but many times black, politicians suppressing their freedoms with emotional rhetoric and government programs. It is an unconscious, yet willful submission.
A century after Fredrick Douglas petitioned President Lincoln to grant full citizenship to slaves rather than relocating them to South America, Martin Luther King traveled a similar path. He believed that all people should be treated the same, that regardless of one's color, he or she should enjoy all the privileges of being an American citizen and all the privileges of being a human being. Unfortunately, many of those that followed Dr. King took his message, repackaged it, and then redistributed it as though it was the original. It was not.
The new message said this: "Life is unfair if you are black. No matter what, you do not have a chance. Because you do not have a chance, you need me, you need the government to take care of you. You will not be able to accomplish the great things that other people accomplish who have different skin color. Those who do are not 'authentic'. They are 'sellouts', 'Uncle Toms'."
This heretic deviation from Dr. King's message was never propagated to help people. It was a new tool to enslave them. If people think that they need you, you can tell them what to do. They will obey. They will give you power.
Don't believe me? Do a Google search on Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. Include words like fraud, extortion, investigation, and shake-down. Have a good chunk of time blocked because there will be lots of reading.
Men like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton need racism in the United States. They need those with black skin to think that they "can't make it". They need those votes. They need that money. They need that power.
One would have thought that a civil rights leader like Jessie Jackson would have celebrated the possibility of the "First Black President" (a title Bill Clinton and others bestowed on himself). Instead he said that he wanted to "cut his nuts off" (see video here). Why? Why did you want to "cut [the senator's] nuts off", Mr. Jackson? Two reasons: 1) He didn't want to share the power, 2) Obama's election would have diluted Mr. Jackson's power.
Obama's ascension to the "highest office in the land" flies in the face of Jackson's, and other politicians who have exploited minorities for decades, message: "That you can't do it without me." Now, when Jesse goes in front of the cameras to tell America that it hates black people, a President-Elect Obama will mean that Jackson will only lose credibility rather than pad his pockets. "Hates black people?", they say. "Why, a majority of voters just elected a man with black skin to be president. I don't know what Mr. Jackson is talking about..."
...
Today, the man in the gas station and the couple at the grocery store; they didn't seem to be missing any body parts. I didn't see or hear anything that suggested any handicaps. Contrary to the popular opinion espoused by southern white slave-owners in the 19th and 20th centuries, this author believes that God created all races equally. God choose some to have white skin, some to have black, etc. etc. That is the only difference.
Why did these folks need "food stamps"? Can this author possibly know? No, he cannot. Each instance may have circumstances that totally invalidates mentioning it here as an anecdote.
I couldn't help but wonder, however, was it because they have been told that being successful meant being "sell-outs". Was it because that they were raised to feel helpless in a political environment that says, "you can't make it, you need politicians to take care of you." Had they really accessed their true potential, or had years of calculated and manipulative political propaganda dulled their sense of ability?
Barack Obama is different. Hopefully, those labeled by politicians as "minorities" to serve their agenda find his example inspirational and tune out the "worm-tongue" drones of the Jessie Jacksons and the Al Sharptons.
...
One final question: Is Barack Obama a Jedi?
It wasn't until Star Wars: Episode III that the "Republic" discovered that the "Chancellor", to whom it had given emergency absolute power to ensure safety, was actually the "Dark Sith Lord". By then it was too late. Yes, Barack is different. He believes all American citizens should be treated equally. No quotas. No Affirmitive Action. He aims to eliminate all elements of racial divides; he won't shackle one ethnic group while others live freely to "pursue happiness". It is all citizens that should be dependent upon and subservient to the government, not just "minorities".
Friday, January 2, 2009
Oh, Romeo
Have you ever had a buddy that started dating a girl that after first meeting her you thought, oh my? Its not long before he is "in love", he has abandoned all that was previously important, and he lives and breathes his "new love".
Before long, she changes his hair style. He starts to wear new clothes. With careful precision, she exercises more control. Soon she regulates what is appropriate speech. He watches movies that he hates, yearning to go back to playing video games. Golf outings become less frequent, replaced with "quality time together". Different episodes have different independence-to-dependence time frames, but sooner than later, he disappears.
Months later, sometimes years, he resurfaces, desperately seeking help. He wants his freedom back. He wants the former life taken for granted. He wants rid of her.
At this point, one has a decision to make. Will "I-told-you-so" make a difference? Do you help him? Can you?
In the younger years, it is easy to miss the siren's voices. You see what your friend sees. She's hot!! Getting older, having sailed to the island more than once and narrowly escaped, you have the oh-my realizations. You try to reason. You try to warn. He doesn't hear. "She's the best thing that has ever happened to me!!" he exclaims. Soon his life is over. Again.
With age comes apathy. He's found another princess to bring home to mother. He knows better. He sees what you see. He knows what she has planned. Still, he overlooks, explains away, lives the fairytale. At some point, you wash your hands, let him go, and may God save his soul...
This is what is sad: In less than three weeks, we will have an inauguration, and he will marry her. But what is troubling is that I have to marry her too.
Before long, she changes his hair style. He starts to wear new clothes. With careful precision, she exercises more control. Soon she regulates what is appropriate speech. He watches movies that he hates, yearning to go back to playing video games. Golf outings become less frequent, replaced with "quality time together". Different episodes have different independence-to-dependence time frames, but sooner than later, he disappears.
Months later, sometimes years, he resurfaces, desperately seeking help. He wants his freedom back. He wants the former life taken for granted. He wants rid of her.
At this point, one has a decision to make. Will "I-told-you-so" make a difference? Do you help him? Can you?
In the younger years, it is easy to miss the siren's voices. You see what your friend sees. She's hot!! Getting older, having sailed to the island more than once and narrowly escaped, you have the oh-my realizations. You try to reason. You try to warn. He doesn't hear. "She's the best thing that has ever happened to me!!" he exclaims. Soon his life is over. Again.
With age comes apathy. He's found another princess to bring home to mother. He knows better. He sees what you see. He knows what she has planned. Still, he overlooks, explains away, lives the fairytale. At some point, you wash your hands, let him go, and may God save his soul...
This is what is sad: In less than three weeks, we will have an inauguration, and he will marry her. But what is troubling is that I have to marry her too.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Brilliant!!
Dr. Walter E. Williams, the former chairperson of the Department of Economics at George Mason University, is one of my favorite "guest-hosts" on the Rush Limbaugh program. He is brilliant!!! On Wednesday, December 31, 2008, he filled-in for the "vacationing Rush". He started the program by saying, "[he's] going to push back the Frontiers of ignorance." That is exactly what he did in the three-hour program.
As mentioned in this blog, the incremental erasure of liberties in this country are facilitated by the ignorance bread by apathy of its citizenry. Rush Limbaugh says that "ignorance" is the "most expensive commodity" that this country produces.
The most frustrating part of this country's ignorance is the fact that most of it is intentional. Most empty minds are that way because they choose to be. Damn those who educate if the information doesn't fit the agenda, if it forces the pains of thinking beyond a Saturday Night Live sketch.
For those who do want to know, Dr. William's Wednesday program had more content than the average four years of college. It is for that reason that I want to comment and share some of what I heard. If you want to remain uniformed, stop reading now!!
For this entry, I am going to reference Dr. Williams' third segment on the program. He discussed the morality of wealth redistribution. He started by describing a common scene when he participated in Senate hearings. Often the room was full, according to Dr. Williams, not because people were interested in the content, but because they had "side-bets" (tongue-in-cheek) as to whether or not he would be arrested for his lack of reverence toward the self-serving politicians.
At one hearing regarding a minimum wage law, Dr. Williams reportedly said, "Gentleman, the problem with this country is a result of people like you. You get elected for one of two things, or both: Either you promise one American to take the property of another American and give it to him, or you promise one American you will give him a privilege that will be denied another American." If I could find it, I would purchase the C-SPAN video if only to see the faces of the many Senators who think themselves as little gods, ruling over those of us who have the privilege of their leadership.
Dr. Williams went on to quote one of his "heroes", H.L. Minkin, who when asked to explain an election said, "Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is an advance auction on the sale of stolen merchandise." Now, like all conservatives when discussing socialism, he reminded listeners that he was a compassionate human being saying, "I don't want you folks out there to think that I don't care about my fellow man because I don't want to contribute to the welfare state."
What Dr. William's said next was so profound, especially considering the many "Christians" who recently voted for Obama because he was going to implement Christ's teachings by helping the poor through the agent of government. He said, "I care deeply about my fellow man, but I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man in need is praise-worthy and laudable. I think reaching in somebody elses pockets to help your fellow man in need is despicable and worthy of condemnation, that is I think charity is a good thing." Bravo, Dr. Williams!!
What proceeded could not have been closer to the mark. He continued, addressing Christians by saying, "Now for all of you Christians out there, keep in mind when God gave Moses the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal', He did not mean that 'Thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in congress.' And moreover, if you were to ask God, 'well, I'm not stealing, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property.' I think that God would say that that is a sin as well."
I attempted to make this point in one of my heated and rabid posts during the election (see "A Christian Vote - Nah, Let's Move On"). I had anticipated that standard liberals would support Obama, that the life-long democrats would fall in line, but when Christian after Christian announced that Obama was a "Christian vote" because he was going to combat poverty with government programs, that he was going to fund them by taking from those that he determined had more than they needed (i.e., "Joe-The-Plumber"), I was almost driven to alcoholism. Jesus and the apostles hit the ground running helping those in need. Not once did they ever even hint that it was acceptable to force others to join their cause, to engage "Robin Hood" methods and steal from the rich and give to the poor! Not once, was the Roman government even mentioned as a tool to redistribute wealth. Actually, Jesus implied separation when He said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21).
God bless you, Dr. Williams. You are doing "the Lord's work"!!!
As mentioned in this blog, the incremental erasure of liberties in this country are facilitated by the ignorance bread by apathy of its citizenry. Rush Limbaugh says that "ignorance" is the "most expensive commodity" that this country produces.
The most frustrating part of this country's ignorance is the fact that most of it is intentional. Most empty minds are that way because they choose to be. Damn those who educate if the information doesn't fit the agenda, if it forces the pains of thinking beyond a Saturday Night Live sketch.
For those who do want to know, Dr. William's Wednesday program had more content than the average four years of college. It is for that reason that I want to comment and share some of what I heard. If you want to remain uniformed, stop reading now!!
For this entry, I am going to reference Dr. Williams' third segment on the program. He discussed the morality of wealth redistribution. He started by describing a common scene when he participated in Senate hearings. Often the room was full, according to Dr. Williams, not because people were interested in the content, but because they had "side-bets" (tongue-in-cheek) as to whether or not he would be arrested for his lack of reverence toward the self-serving politicians.
At one hearing regarding a minimum wage law, Dr. Williams reportedly said, "Gentleman, the problem with this country is a result of people like you. You get elected for one of two things, or both: Either you promise one American to take the property of another American and give it to him, or you promise one American you will give him a privilege that will be denied another American." If I could find it, I would purchase the C-SPAN video if only to see the faces of the many Senators who think themselves as little gods, ruling over those of us who have the privilege of their leadership.
Dr. Williams went on to quote one of his "heroes", H.L. Minkin, who when asked to explain an election said, "Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is an advance auction on the sale of stolen merchandise." Now, like all conservatives when discussing socialism, he reminded listeners that he was a compassionate human being saying, "I don't want you folks out there to think that I don't care about my fellow man because I don't want to contribute to the welfare state."
What Dr. William's said next was so profound, especially considering the many "Christians" who recently voted for Obama because he was going to implement Christ's teachings by helping the poor through the agent of government. He said, "I care deeply about my fellow man, but I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man in need is praise-worthy and laudable. I think reaching in somebody elses pockets to help your fellow man in need is despicable and worthy of condemnation, that is I think charity is a good thing." Bravo, Dr. Williams!!
What proceeded could not have been closer to the mark. He continued, addressing Christians by saying, "Now for all of you Christians out there, keep in mind when God gave Moses the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal', He did not mean that 'Thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in congress.' And moreover, if you were to ask God, 'well, I'm not stealing, but is it okay to be a recipient of stolen property.' I think that God would say that that is a sin as well."
I attempted to make this point in one of my heated and rabid posts during the election (see "A Christian Vote - Nah, Let's Move On"). I had anticipated that standard liberals would support Obama, that the life-long democrats would fall in line, but when Christian after Christian announced that Obama was a "Christian vote" because he was going to combat poverty with government programs, that he was going to fund them by taking from those that he determined had more than they needed (i.e., "Joe-The-Plumber"), I was almost driven to alcoholism. Jesus and the apostles hit the ground running helping those in need. Not once did they ever even hint that it was acceptable to force others to join their cause, to engage "Robin Hood" methods and steal from the rich and give to the poor! Not once, was the Roman government even mentioned as a tool to redistribute wealth. Actually, Jesus implied separation when He said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21).
God bless you, Dr. Williams. You are doing "the Lord's work"!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
