My wife just got out of the hospital, having received several stents, opening up some blocked coronary arteries. While there, we were privileged to view the actual process of injecting the dye into the heart and the obvious blocked areas of several blood vessels. The technology is quite astonishing, and the existence of such techniques got me to thinking.
The modern scientific establishment is downright dismissive of Biblical Christianity. The scientist-priests' scornful attitudes drip with sarcasm and contempt when they compare the modern technology and its wonderful results with the simplicity of faith. It is as if the modern world - especially with reference to the technical achievements of modern civilization - are the product of Atheism marching forward unopposed.
Now I know that the Atheist view is totally incorrect, unfounded and not historically true. Atheism cannot produce anything positive, and if it claims anything as its own, it is a claim based on intellectual theft. The modern scientific establishment would not exist at all unless it were not built on thought and investigation based on a Biblical Judeo-Christian worldview.
The father of the scientific method, Sir Isaac Newton, said "The most beautiful system of the Sun, Planets and Comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God."
The practical system of investigation of the world around us and the use of careful observation and experiment, expecting logical results to proceed from logical inquiry, is one of his greatest foundations of the modern scientific world. And what drove Newton was his view of the Universe as an expression of God. He understood that the World of God and the Word of God are both established on the foundation of the Character of God Himself.
The "scientific" establishment of today is historically grounded on a Christian-Biblical worldview. But where God is not honored, blindness and futility set in. No one explores to find anything if everything is just "brute factuality." Without the assumption of an orderly universe, created by a purposeful, orderly God, then there is little point in spending money or effort to "discover" something that everyone knows cannot be there. It is far easier looking for something that is part of a pattern you know already exists. The whole process of discovery rests on an assumption that by following a logical sequence of steps, you know you are going to arrive at a logical conclusion.
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe that the universe is orderly or logical , or purposeful – even in our own lives or existence, no matter what we imagine; we are just the product of randomness – hence, no order. So why expect to find any order when you already know that there is no sense or order to be found? To believe in order is to believe in a giver of order. That is heresy to an Atheist.
Wrong views of God result in blight and blindness in an individual or a culture or an entire civilization.
Atheistic cultures steal the positive results of a culture built on a Christian worldview (tools, hospitals, technology, etc.) and claim it as their own creation, but as I have point out, they cannot possibly be the impetus for it. They really don't have the insight for it: they don't “think right” about the world and thus are blind - willfully blind – to the logical outworking of thought based on a Theo-centric worldview.
The modern scientific culture would never have come about as an outgrowth of Atheistic thought.
Political correctness is the fruit of Atheism – the deliberate rejection of the real world for the hoped-for world without God. Truly He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. There is no wisdom, nor counsel nor understanding against the Lord. In the end, He blinds those who refuse to see.
So we are able to give credit where credit is due - to the Lord God, who is the pillar and ground of the truth, and to His Grace, which granted to men who obey Him insight into His world, so they may "subdue it" and make it bountiful, within the confines of the Fall.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
The Frigate of Americanism
Thomas Jefferson, before becoming President, was usually in the party of those who favored a freeman-farmer type of government, where independence and minimal government reigned supreme. Jefferson was our third president, after Washington and John Adams. Adams was a Federalist, favoring a strong central government as opposed to Jefferson's ideal.
This Jeffersonian Propensity - a very worthy ideal - found a most excellent summation in this quote:
“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801.
This tension is to be observed in the very early American government between the Jefferson types who favored very limited government, and the Federalist types who favored a strong central government., showing up in the debate over the building and manning of the US Navy for the defense of our trade. “Six Frigates”, by Ian Toll, traces the back and forth of US Policy that consecutively enabled and then starved the infant navy built to defend American national interests. Jefferson (typically) sponsored the idea of building gunboats in each port that would be manned by volunteers. It was a cheap and simple solution tailored to the early American ideal. It was also a complete flop when tested in actual defense of the harbors and towns. Later, President Jefferson sent the same frigates he had formerly opposed to the Mediterranean to deal with Islamic terrorists and marauders. They were eminently successful.
His “volunteer” force concept was proven to be wrong in the area of defending American interests in the dangerous arena of Maritime policy and national defense, yet in many other areas, his notions of freemen taking care of their own business has become the hallmark of what we used to mean when we said “Americanism.”
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, as witnessed by Alexis Tocqueville in his landmark book "Democracy in America" was marked by American volunteerism in the daily lives of the citizens. It could be fairly said that Jefferson and those who thought like him, expressed something essential about our people and how they viewed government and freedom. Government was not even on the horizon in most people's lives, rather it was Christianity and local community. Quite a contrast with today's in your face political correctness and swarms of inspectors and taxes and regulations harassing and eating out the substance of the ordinary person.
Some degree of government is necessary, and it is the duty and calling of every generation of freemen to attempt to keep the balance. In the last two or three generations I fear we have been so busy living “the good life” that we have sorely neglected that balance. We are perilously close to a point of no return in so many areas of the preservation of our Liberties.
We need a major course correction, or our “frigate” of Americanism will end up on the rocks.
This Jeffersonian Propensity - a very worthy ideal - found a most excellent summation in this quote:
“Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” – Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, 1801.
This tension is to be observed in the very early American government between the Jefferson types who favored very limited government, and the Federalist types who favored a strong central government., showing up in the debate over the building and manning of the US Navy for the defense of our trade. “Six Frigates”, by Ian Toll, traces the back and forth of US Policy that consecutively enabled and then starved the infant navy built to defend American national interests. Jefferson (typically) sponsored the idea of building gunboats in each port that would be manned by volunteers. It was a cheap and simple solution tailored to the early American ideal. It was also a complete flop when tested in actual defense of the harbors and towns. Later, President Jefferson sent the same frigates he had formerly opposed to the Mediterranean to deal with Islamic terrorists and marauders. They were eminently successful.
His “volunteer” force concept was proven to be wrong in the area of defending American interests in the dangerous arena of Maritime policy and national defense, yet in many other areas, his notions of freemen taking care of their own business has become the hallmark of what we used to mean when we said “Americanism.”
The first quarter of the nineteenth century, as witnessed by Alexis Tocqueville in his landmark book "Democracy in America" was marked by American volunteerism in the daily lives of the citizens. It could be fairly said that Jefferson and those who thought like him, expressed something essential about our people and how they viewed government and freedom. Government was not even on the horizon in most people's lives, rather it was Christianity and local community. Quite a contrast with today's in your face political correctness and swarms of inspectors and taxes and regulations harassing and eating out the substance of the ordinary person.
Some degree of government is necessary, and it is the duty and calling of every generation of freemen to attempt to keep the balance. In the last two or three generations I fear we have been so busy living “the good life” that we have sorely neglected that balance. We are perilously close to a point of no return in so many areas of the preservation of our Liberties.
We need a major course correction, or our “frigate” of Americanism will end up on the rocks.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Unelected Fourth Branch
Any course in American Government will contain the description of the three branches of our system of government: the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial. These three represent the division of power that was wisely created by the Founders, in recognition of the inherent nature of those in power to aggregate power to themselves. Thus, by dividing the power into three heads, it was a means to restrain that impulse to dominate.
Yet, because the electorate has grown distracted, it has failed to note the growth of a cancer on our government that even now threatens to destroy that division of power and to swamp all our liberties by serving a non elected interest that is funded by taxpayer dollars. I am referring to the Unions, in particular, public sector unions.
The problem might not have ever come to our attention except that the economy has collapsed like a rapidly- receding tide, exposing the few remaining institutions that are still holding their own and prospering – public sector employees most notably. Almost all sectors of our economy are suffering, except the public unions - they are prospering.
The explanation of that fact is not hard to understand when one sees that public sector unions have no competition. Their source of funds is the public treasury and in theory at least, that source cannot fail. A private sector company bankrupted by private sector unionization kills its union parasite also: they both die, thus checking the union. But who checks a public sector union?
They are funded and protected through the government, which is in turn directed by elected officials who in turn are bankrolled and supported in their campaigns by public sector union bosses. These same bosses have a stranglehold on the dues of their members, who have little or no say how their dues are spent. Thus, when the legislators, who are bought and paid for by the unions, vote for wage increases and benefit increases and long term juicy pension benefits, they are passing on the bill to the taxpayers who cannot readily deflect the higher and higher taxes imposed upon them by the public sector unions. Even more perniciously, every dollar extracted from the hapless taxpayers against their will, provides an even larger war chest for union bosses to reward or punish legislators who vote on union issues.
Even the Democrat’s favorite Democrat – Franklin Roosevelt – was against public sector unions. Yet the present day Democrat Party would disappear if it were not the party of public sector unions. What Roosevelt feared has come to pass.
It is the worst sort of incest: paid for by the taxpayers, yet out of their control through the ballot box. It is bribery at the highest levels.
I have seen the union machine in action through several election cycles – from the Democrat United Mine Workers’ machine opposing conservative political candidates in the coal fields to Florida teacher’s unions threatening and then rewarding Governor Charley Crist in the run-up to the November 2010 elections. Crist vetoed an Education reform bill that the Republican-dominated Florida legislature passed in mid-2010. He was elected as a conservative Republican, but jumped parties when it was obvious that he would not prevail in a runoff for Senator in the Republican primary against Marco Rubio. Showing his true colors, he courted the unions, thus stabbing in the back a much-needed reform of the Florida Education system that the union vigorously opposed. While his election effort eventually failed, it demonstrated how seriously public sector union support is regarded by unscrupulous politicians who are willing to sell their souls for political power.
A number of corrective measures have been proposed: term limits is one longer term solution, which I support. Rescinding (at the federal level) of the Union’s right to organize workers. President John Kennedy signed an executive order in 1962 granting such a right. That order began the ruin of the Democrat Party, converting it into a Pimp machine for political power, eroding any basis for fair handedness or principle that it had in the past.
It has been estimated that public sector pay and benefits are as much as 44% higher than that of the private sector and growing daily. There are different ways of viewing this relationship and it is worth reading more about it. It is inconceivable that our government needs to be as large as it is, and to be involved in so much regulation and intrusion. We need to take dramatic action to cut away whole swaths of the government. I suggest that the cabinet level departments of Energy, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services and TSA be eliminated, and whatever remaining functions are necessary be privatized.
Government bailouts in 2010 have largely served to protect the interests of public sector union members at the expense of the taxpayers. The auto sector interventions served to enrich the UAW enormously and defraud the actual owners, the stock holders, constituting a thinly-veiled thug-like takeover of other people’s property and a bypass of the bankruptcy laws by a Socialist government. All public bailouts are bad policy. States and governments, financial institutions and private and public organizations must be allowed to fail and restructure, just like in the real world.
Congress must take back control of the currency and cut the Federal Reserve out of all monetary policy whatsoever. The Fed is no friend of the American government, and is certainly no friend of American Free Markets. The Fed is not even a government institution. It is a concoction of the multinational banks to protect their interests. Our government should have nothing to do with it. The Constitution places the regulation of the money supply squarely in Congress’s lap, yet many protest any move to restoration of that relationship. Why would they think it proper to abdicate that responsibility to an unelected and basically unaccountable organization that has more in common with unconstitutionalists bent on Global control than our own nation’s self interest? Recent revelations of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and the Fed ought to cause any sensible person to call for the elimination of the Fed. View this humorous short video for a short course on this phenomenon.
One law that should be passed that would require all union elections to be free and open and uncoerced. Perhaps having union elections policed by such democratic stalwarts as Russia or Somalia would be an improvement over what they have now. Union members should have a right to challenge in court the way their dues are used. Right now, members are practically mute and powerless and their dues are in many cases being used to support causes that are at radical variance with the member’s values. The Unions are legally exempt from racketeering laws (RICO) also, thus putting the leadership in a safe position to actually use racketeering to achieve their ends and bully their members. The undemocratic processes in union elections must be reformed - primarily by the membership, but they need help.
The proposed Card-Check legislation that the Reid-Pelosi-Obama axis are attempting to sneak under the noses of the American People under the radically twisted misnomer of the "Employees Free Choice Act" is an example of exactly the wrong kind of legislation that Congress is considering. The intent of this act - to strip away proposed member’s rights to vote on the unionization of their workforce - is a real tip off to the morals and motives of many in the Democrat Party who are supporting what amounts to thuggery underwritten by the Federal Government on behalf of further unchecked growth of the entire union movement. What Union leaders could never achieve on a level playing field, they propose to ram down the throat of the American public in a lame-duck session of a Congress that been repudiated at the ballot box. This is the Democrat Party in its true colors.
The danger to the Republic shows on many fronts. It is ironic that from its beginnings in the industrial revolution, starting as a movement in which the workers were just pawns in the hands of the industrialists, it has grown so much in power that it now threatens the financial and political viability of the nation that has done more than any other to recognize the right of all citizens to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unions now want a guarantee of economic happiness at the expense of all else. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Our greatest danger is from the Unelected Fourth Branch of Government - Public Sector Unions.
Yet, because the electorate has grown distracted, it has failed to note the growth of a cancer on our government that even now threatens to destroy that division of power and to swamp all our liberties by serving a non elected interest that is funded by taxpayer dollars. I am referring to the Unions, in particular, public sector unions.
The problem might not have ever come to our attention except that the economy has collapsed like a rapidly- receding tide, exposing the few remaining institutions that are still holding their own and prospering – public sector employees most notably. Almost all sectors of our economy are suffering, except the public unions - they are prospering.
The explanation of that fact is not hard to understand when one sees that public sector unions have no competition. Their source of funds is the public treasury and in theory at least, that source cannot fail. A private sector company bankrupted by private sector unionization kills its union parasite also: they both die, thus checking the union. But who checks a public sector union?
They are funded and protected through the government, which is in turn directed by elected officials who in turn are bankrolled and supported in their campaigns by public sector union bosses. These same bosses have a stranglehold on the dues of their members, who have little or no say how their dues are spent. Thus, when the legislators, who are bought and paid for by the unions, vote for wage increases and benefit increases and long term juicy pension benefits, they are passing on the bill to the taxpayers who cannot readily deflect the higher and higher taxes imposed upon them by the public sector unions. Even more perniciously, every dollar extracted from the hapless taxpayers against their will, provides an even larger war chest for union bosses to reward or punish legislators who vote on union issues.
Even the Democrat’s favorite Democrat – Franklin Roosevelt – was against public sector unions. Yet the present day Democrat Party would disappear if it were not the party of public sector unions. What Roosevelt feared has come to pass.
It is the worst sort of incest: paid for by the taxpayers, yet out of their control through the ballot box. It is bribery at the highest levels.
I have seen the union machine in action through several election cycles – from the Democrat United Mine Workers’ machine opposing conservative political candidates in the coal fields to Florida teacher’s unions threatening and then rewarding Governor Charley Crist in the run-up to the November 2010 elections. Crist vetoed an Education reform bill that the Republican-dominated Florida legislature passed in mid-2010. He was elected as a conservative Republican, but jumped parties when it was obvious that he would not prevail in a runoff for Senator in the Republican primary against Marco Rubio. Showing his true colors, he courted the unions, thus stabbing in the back a much-needed reform of the Florida Education system that the union vigorously opposed. While his election effort eventually failed, it demonstrated how seriously public sector union support is regarded by unscrupulous politicians who are willing to sell their souls for political power.
A number of corrective measures have been proposed: term limits is one longer term solution, which I support. Rescinding (at the federal level) of the Union’s right to organize workers. President John Kennedy signed an executive order in 1962 granting such a right. That order began the ruin of the Democrat Party, converting it into a Pimp machine for political power, eroding any basis for fair handedness or principle that it had in the past.
It has been estimated that public sector pay and benefits are as much as 44% higher than that of the private sector and growing daily. There are different ways of viewing this relationship and it is worth reading more about it. It is inconceivable that our government needs to be as large as it is, and to be involved in so much regulation and intrusion. We need to take dramatic action to cut away whole swaths of the government. I suggest that the cabinet level departments of Energy, Education, Labor, Health and Human Services and TSA be eliminated, and whatever remaining functions are necessary be privatized.
Government bailouts in 2010 have largely served to protect the interests of public sector union members at the expense of the taxpayers. The auto sector interventions served to enrich the UAW enormously and defraud the actual owners, the stock holders, constituting a thinly-veiled thug-like takeover of other people’s property and a bypass of the bankruptcy laws by a Socialist government. All public bailouts are bad policy. States and governments, financial institutions and private and public organizations must be allowed to fail and restructure, just like in the real world.
Congress must take back control of the currency and cut the Federal Reserve out of all monetary policy whatsoever. The Fed is no friend of the American government, and is certainly no friend of American Free Markets. The Fed is not even a government institution. It is a concoction of the multinational banks to protect their interests. Our government should have nothing to do with it. The Constitution places the regulation of the money supply squarely in Congress’s lap, yet many protest any move to restoration of that relationship. Why would they think it proper to abdicate that responsibility to an unelected and basically unaccountable organization that has more in common with unconstitutionalists bent on Global control than our own nation’s self interest? Recent revelations of the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and the Fed ought to cause any sensible person to call for the elimination of the Fed. View this humorous short video for a short course on this phenomenon.
One law that should be passed that would require all union elections to be free and open and uncoerced. Perhaps having union elections policed by such democratic stalwarts as Russia or Somalia would be an improvement over what they have now. Union members should have a right to challenge in court the way their dues are used. Right now, members are practically mute and powerless and their dues are in many cases being used to support causes that are at radical variance with the member’s values. The Unions are legally exempt from racketeering laws (RICO) also, thus putting the leadership in a safe position to actually use racketeering to achieve their ends and bully their members. The undemocratic processes in union elections must be reformed - primarily by the membership, but they need help.
The proposed Card-Check legislation that the Reid-Pelosi-Obama axis are attempting to sneak under the noses of the American People under the radically twisted misnomer of the "Employees Free Choice Act" is an example of exactly the wrong kind of legislation that Congress is considering. The intent of this act - to strip away proposed member’s rights to vote on the unionization of their workforce - is a real tip off to the morals and motives of many in the Democrat Party who are supporting what amounts to thuggery underwritten by the Federal Government on behalf of further unchecked growth of the entire union movement. What Union leaders could never achieve on a level playing field, they propose to ram down the throat of the American public in a lame-duck session of a Congress that been repudiated at the ballot box. This is the Democrat Party in its true colors.
The danger to the Republic shows on many fronts. It is ironic that from its beginnings in the industrial revolution, starting as a movement in which the workers were just pawns in the hands of the industrialists, it has grown so much in power that it now threatens the financial and political viability of the nation that has done more than any other to recognize the right of all citizens to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Unions now want a guarantee of economic happiness at the expense of all else. They must not be allowed to succeed.
Our greatest danger is from the Unelected Fourth Branch of Government - Public Sector Unions.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The Great Christmas Boil Over
The Holiday Season is in full cry on TV. The Hallmark channel, obviously lacking seasonal movies that have any substance actually related to Christmas, are airing numerous touchy-feely films that clearly have the intention of being "seasonal" without being in any clear way connected with the Christ of Christmas.
Granted that the Season, as it is called, has been in the process of a stove top boil over for a long time. You know what a boil-over is, the pot of spaghetti or some other food frothing up and then boiling over, spilling its contents all over the stove top. What started as a considerable volume of water and food is frothed out and spent.
Same with the Christmas Story to our post-Christian culture. The once-vibrant testimony of a season of remembering that God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world to save the world - and that Jesus came as a baby into a humble family - in a not-ostentatious way into a hard, uncaring but oh-so-needy world - that story seems to have not only been back-benched, but completely taken off the menu of choices.
Rather, a number of spin off themes has emerged: Santa Claus, for instance. First, he was a figure based on a real person who did Christ like deeds at the winter season, showing charity and gift giving behavior. As a reminder of Jesus, who is the ultimate Prototype of such selfless behavior and attitude, the original Santa was not bad. That character quickly morphed into the miracle-working, magical Santa of today who has elves and a magical sleigh and a gift bag that can contain innumerable gifts to children who have been "good" all year. The modern Santa also has god-like powers and the ability to do powerful things for those he favors. "Miracle on 34th street" is an early example of the revisionist theme in the Santa genre. The last scene of the movie makes that point not so subtly.
Take the music for another instance. Up to the late eighties or early nineties, real hymns of Christmas were heard throughout the stores or on the radio and TV in the run up to Christmas Day, but the hard-eyed purveyors of political correctness and "diversity" have frightened most store owners into banning such songs as "Joy to the World" or "God rest ye merry gentlemen." Instead we are regaled with tunes of "Frosty the Snowman" another bit of boil over froth, and "Rudolph the Red-nosed reindeer" and the multiple threads of froth that came from that fictional character.
There is the Grinch also: "The Grinch that stole Christmas." I am sure that a re-make of this old film would jettison the word Christmas if it could find a way to say the same thing without honoring Christ in the word itself. In any case, Whoville had a tree with gifts - another bit of froth - but no real mention of Christ or His birth. The Christ-hating world is even willing to use the general emotions of the Season, but hijack them and attach them to anything but the birth of the Son of God.
Perhaps the idea is: if we can spawn enough froth, the real contents of the pot can be discarded along with the froth that has covered the stove top. Everyone knows the froth is spurious, immaterial, imaginary, so perhaps it all is.
I know there is a growing segment of the culture that is plainly uncomfortable with the story of a Christ Child. They are uncomfortable for the same reason they don't like being reminded that the story of Easter is the story of Resurrection - which reminds them of the claims of a Christ who died for the sins of the whole world on a historical cross. A universal savior smacks of a universal damnation, and that is where the Christ story "quits preaching and goes to meddlin'" in many people's minds.
Emotions without a basis are really what the Atheists charge to the Christians. They believe - or try mightily to convince themselves - that the real Christmas Story - like the boil off from the story - is mythical. Most certainly the boil off is pure mythology, but the real Christmas Story - that is entirely factual, and historical.
Which is kind of tough on the unbelievers. They cannot rest easy in their beds, no matter how much they ignore or morph the story. Even killing the Christians and trying to burn or expunge their words won't work, because that which is true is written on their hearts by the God Who is There.
Let us who know HIM, continue on in faithful witness to the truth of His Word. A wonderful event happened two thousand years ago - in fulfilment of his ages-old promise to send a Savior and Redeemer - God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world, to save His people from their sins. He succeeded in that, for He is God. It is up to us to publish that truth to our generation, and to remain faithful to its message of true hope to a lost and dying world.
Granted that the Season, as it is called, has been in the process of a stove top boil over for a long time. You know what a boil-over is, the pot of spaghetti or some other food frothing up and then boiling over, spilling its contents all over the stove top. What started as a considerable volume of water and food is frothed out and spent.
Same with the Christmas Story to our post-Christian culture. The once-vibrant testimony of a season of remembering that God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world to save the world - and that Jesus came as a baby into a humble family - in a not-ostentatious way into a hard, uncaring but oh-so-needy world - that story seems to have not only been back-benched, but completely taken off the menu of choices.
Rather, a number of spin off themes has emerged: Santa Claus, for instance. First, he was a figure based on a real person who did Christ like deeds at the winter season, showing charity and gift giving behavior. As a reminder of Jesus, who is the ultimate Prototype of such selfless behavior and attitude, the original Santa was not bad. That character quickly morphed into the miracle-working, magical Santa of today who has elves and a magical sleigh and a gift bag that can contain innumerable gifts to children who have been "good" all year. The modern Santa also has god-like powers and the ability to do powerful things for those he favors. "Miracle on 34th street" is an early example of the revisionist theme in the Santa genre. The last scene of the movie makes that point not so subtly.
Take the music for another instance. Up to the late eighties or early nineties, real hymns of Christmas were heard throughout the stores or on the radio and TV in the run up to Christmas Day, but the hard-eyed purveyors of political correctness and "diversity" have frightened most store owners into banning such songs as "Joy to the World" or "God rest ye merry gentlemen." Instead we are regaled with tunes of "Frosty the Snowman" another bit of boil over froth, and "Rudolph the Red-nosed reindeer" and the multiple threads of froth that came from that fictional character.
There is the Grinch also: "The Grinch that stole Christmas." I am sure that a re-make of this old film would jettison the word Christmas if it could find a way to say the same thing without honoring Christ in the word itself. In any case, Whoville had a tree with gifts - another bit of froth - but no real mention of Christ or His birth. The Christ-hating world is even willing to use the general emotions of the Season, but hijack them and attach them to anything but the birth of the Son of God.
Perhaps the idea is: if we can spawn enough froth, the real contents of the pot can be discarded along with the froth that has covered the stove top. Everyone knows the froth is spurious, immaterial, imaginary, so perhaps it all is.
I know there is a growing segment of the culture that is plainly uncomfortable with the story of a Christ Child. They are uncomfortable for the same reason they don't like being reminded that the story of Easter is the story of Resurrection - which reminds them of the claims of a Christ who died for the sins of the whole world on a historical cross. A universal savior smacks of a universal damnation, and that is where the Christ story "quits preaching and goes to meddlin'" in many people's minds.
Emotions without a basis are really what the Atheists charge to the Christians. They believe - or try mightily to convince themselves - that the real Christmas Story - like the boil off from the story - is mythical. Most certainly the boil off is pure mythology, but the real Christmas Story - that is entirely factual, and historical.
Which is kind of tough on the unbelievers. They cannot rest easy in their beds, no matter how much they ignore or morph the story. Even killing the Christians and trying to burn or expunge their words won't work, because that which is true is written on their hearts by the God Who is There.
Let us who know HIM, continue on in faithful witness to the truth of His Word. A wonderful event happened two thousand years ago - in fulfilment of his ages-old promise to send a Savior and Redeemer - God sent his Only Begotten Son into the world, to save His people from their sins. He succeeded in that, for He is God. It is up to us to publish that truth to our generation, and to remain faithful to its message of true hope to a lost and dying world.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A Well-deserved McCollum Defeat
Once in a while I get to hug myself in glee. Last night's primary election results gave me one of those rare opportunities. Rick Scott defeated Bill McCollum to run for the Florida governorship in November under the Republican banner.
This has been the dirtiest campaign that I have ever seen, and his conservative claims notwithstanding, McCollum proved himself to be an underhanded dirty trickster of the worst sort. Beyond McCollum's very poor ethical performance, many of the establishment Republicans in the Florida Republican Party publicly supported McCollum - something they should not have done.
It was also distressing to see such a herd mentality at work among other national "conservative" voices such as Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Foxnews, Newsmax...the list reads like a roster of good guys. Knowing what I know of the McCollum campaign, I can only imagine that they, being at some distance from it, were not able to see what was really going on. I don't like the thought that they would throw principle overboard to support a corrupt career pol who is their pick. Such short-sighted behavior is what ruins political parties.
Normally, I associate the "conservative" logo as meaning that one's behavior is grounded in Godly moral principles, but I am at a loss to discover how McCollum could have garnered such support from so many people without someone blowing the whistle on what he was actually up to.
One staunch Republican friend in Palm Beach county blew the whistle on the unethical behavior by many in the state Republican party who were urging support for McCollum in their official capacity as representatives - insiders in the Party apparatus. No one would deny any person the right to privately support any candidate of their choosing, but to speak on behalf of one of the primary candidates when one occupies a postion in the State Party - and to make it known they are speaking in their official capacity - that goes beyond good ethical behavior. Some of them have quibbled that they did nothing wrong, but the donation of millions of Republican Party dollars to the McCollum primary campaign against Scott is clearly a betrayal of the Party's primary process and an open indication that the Florida Republican establishment is picking winners. Doing that in a party primary is both foolish and wrong.
Fortunately for the people of Florida (and the nation) their plans were derailed by voters who decided they did not like the underhanded campaign McCollum ran, nor the prospects of living under a governorship of such a man.
One can only hope that those same voters don't decide that they need to jettison the Party that so publicly polluted the primary.
I am sure that the right man won. It remains to be seen whether he can deal effectively with the disgruntled Republican pols who might form a barrier to his gubernatorial campaign and inadvertently hand the election to the Democrats. For them to refuse to cooperate with Scott because he is profoundly an "outsider" would, in my opinion, be suicidal for the Republican Party. It would solidify the suspicion in many people's minds that our basic civic problem is career pols who care more for their own things than the things of the people they purport to serve.
Of course it also depends on Scott's leadership skills. The gubernatorial race is now in his hands, and at this point he could presume to hold a lead going into the November elections. How he handles his public persona, and the issues, and the recently-beaten Florida Republican establishment will show us the mettle of the man. My support is with him. We need many more outsiders in our political system to reverse the decades of damage done by the career pols.
This has been the dirtiest campaign that I have ever seen, and his conservative claims notwithstanding, McCollum proved himself to be an underhanded dirty trickster of the worst sort. Beyond McCollum's very poor ethical performance, many of the establishment Republicans in the Florida Republican Party publicly supported McCollum - something they should not have done.
It was also distressing to see such a herd mentality at work among other national "conservative" voices such as Newt Gingrich, Dick Morris, Foxnews, Newsmax...the list reads like a roster of good guys. Knowing what I know of the McCollum campaign, I can only imagine that they, being at some distance from it, were not able to see what was really going on. I don't like the thought that they would throw principle overboard to support a corrupt career pol who is their pick. Such short-sighted behavior is what ruins political parties.
Normally, I associate the "conservative" logo as meaning that one's behavior is grounded in Godly moral principles, but I am at a loss to discover how McCollum could have garnered such support from so many people without someone blowing the whistle on what he was actually up to.
One staunch Republican friend in Palm Beach county blew the whistle on the unethical behavior by many in the state Republican party who were urging support for McCollum in their official capacity as representatives - insiders in the Party apparatus. No one would deny any person the right to privately support any candidate of their choosing, but to speak on behalf of one of the primary candidates when one occupies a postion in the State Party - and to make it known they are speaking in their official capacity - that goes beyond good ethical behavior. Some of them have quibbled that they did nothing wrong, but the donation of millions of Republican Party dollars to the McCollum primary campaign against Scott is clearly a betrayal of the Party's primary process and an open indication that the Florida Republican establishment is picking winners. Doing that in a party primary is both foolish and wrong.
Fortunately for the people of Florida (and the nation) their plans were derailed by voters who decided they did not like the underhanded campaign McCollum ran, nor the prospects of living under a governorship of such a man.
One can only hope that those same voters don't decide that they need to jettison the Party that so publicly polluted the primary.
I am sure that the right man won. It remains to be seen whether he can deal effectively with the disgruntled Republican pols who might form a barrier to his gubernatorial campaign and inadvertently hand the election to the Democrats. For them to refuse to cooperate with Scott because he is profoundly an "outsider" would, in my opinion, be suicidal for the Republican Party. It would solidify the suspicion in many people's minds that our basic civic problem is career pols who care more for their own things than the things of the people they purport to serve.
Of course it also depends on Scott's leadership skills. The gubernatorial race is now in his hands, and at this point he could presume to hold a lead going into the November elections. How he handles his public persona, and the issues, and the recently-beaten Florida Republican establishment will show us the mettle of the man. My support is with him. We need many more outsiders in our political system to reverse the decades of damage done by the career pols.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Scott vs McCollum Race in Fla. - A Friend's Commentary
A man I have grown to respect more and more as I got to know him wrote this email blast. There are other well-reasoned and well-documented thoughts he has shared recently, but I felt his words needed repeating. (His comments are in quotes at the end of this article.)
We are coming down to the wire in this Primary for Governor in Fla. I have observed that all the national Republican voices (Gingrich, Hannity, NewsMax -who recently received a visit from perhaps their new hero Bill Clinton) and the usual suspects.) have gotten on the McCollum bandwagon. Normally, I would have been glad about that, but something is not right about how this primary campaign has been waged by the McCollum people and other supporters. The career pols have circled their wagons and are vigorously attempting to exclude someone not of their career politician group from the governorship.
Often I will get behind someone I know something about, but this time I have learned more than perhaps I wanted to know about McCollum. I now regard him as the dirtiest pol in Florida, even dirtier than Charley Crist, and that is saying something. This primary campaign has solidified my attitude against the State and National Republican party, and some of the so-called conservative voices nationally who have thrown their support behind McCollum. FoxNews has also unwittingly been featuring McCollum, and not Scott at all (to my knowledge). The McCollum campaign has been run on an agenda of dirty tricks and innuendo, using Florida Republican Party funds - in a PRIMARY race. My friend points out that unseemly support from a group who takes party contributions from all Republicans and is not supposed to get involved in backing one primary candidate over another. That is an unforgivable betrayal of those who contributed to that fund.
I think on that point alone they have probably broken their trust with the party loyalists who have hitherto supported it. They Florida Republican Party leadership need to be held to account.
Unfortunately, this is a hard lesson, regardless of which way the race goes. Never trust a career politician, nor the party of career politicians that feed off of the continued election of these types. We have been betrayed on several levels already, and it might mean some more years of betrayal politics in Fla until the business of the state can be set right again.
Here are the comments from George Blumel, my friend whom I trust.
Title of the email: "Win or lose, we must learn this lesson..."
"The lesson here is never give money to the Republican Party directly –it can and will be used against you and your choices. Maybe you like their choice this time but next time they’ll give to the other guy. They have their own agenda. That applies to the RNC, The NRSC, the NRCC and your State Party, in Florida, the RPOF. In Florida’s primary race for governor, Rick Scott, the clean-government, self-financing outsider, is being vilified by the leadership and they are interfering with the primary election in favor of their career politician.
It takes more than money to win an election but at least Scott is spending his own money. "McCollum has raised just $7.7 million in hard money — but benefited from $3.9 million in help from the state Republican Party (RPOF) and another $9 million in special-interest money from Walt Disney, U.S. Sugar, Florida Power & Light, Publix Supermarkets and other companies, used to buy ads. In total, McCollum and his corporate backers hurled $21 million into his primary." That quote from the Orlando Sentinel doesn't even mention the taxpayer money McCollum has taken directly from the State. The special interests are buying their candidate as usual, but the big contributor that bothers me the most is the $millions from the RPOF. This is money contributed by Repubs for promoting the party and our candidates in the general election, NOT for taking sides in the Primary! OUTRAGEOUS!
The lesson here is NEVER CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARTY --these are the professional political establishment types that have given us corruption and bad government. They are scared to death that an outsider successful businessman will run the State efficiently with regard to taxes, regulations and even-handedness which largely leaves them out of their control. They lose their clout, their perks, their favors, their "importance."
Give to the candidate you favor directly or the funds will be used against your choice for the benefit of the insiders and business as usual. Jim Greer, Charlie Crist and the other crooks in our party have done that and continue to do it. Scott is our one chance to reverse that trend here in Florida –McCollum will happily continue his lifelong feeding at the government trough as he honors not his oath but his commitments to those who put him in office –Sugar, Disney, the utilities he is supposed to regulate, and all the others. "
All I can say is "Amen."
We are coming down to the wire in this Primary for Governor in Fla. I have observed that all the national Republican voices (Gingrich, Hannity, NewsMax -who recently received a visit from perhaps their new hero Bill Clinton) and the usual suspects.) have gotten on the McCollum bandwagon. Normally, I would have been glad about that, but something is not right about how this primary campaign has been waged by the McCollum people and other supporters. The career pols have circled their wagons and are vigorously attempting to exclude someone not of their career politician group from the governorship.
Often I will get behind someone I know something about, but this time I have learned more than perhaps I wanted to know about McCollum. I now regard him as the dirtiest pol in Florida, even dirtier than Charley Crist, and that is saying something. This primary campaign has solidified my attitude against the State and National Republican party, and some of the so-called conservative voices nationally who have thrown their support behind McCollum. FoxNews has also unwittingly been featuring McCollum, and not Scott at all (to my knowledge). The McCollum campaign has been run on an agenda of dirty tricks and innuendo, using Florida Republican Party funds - in a PRIMARY race. My friend points out that unseemly support from a group who takes party contributions from all Republicans and is not supposed to get involved in backing one primary candidate over another. That is an unforgivable betrayal of those who contributed to that fund.
I think on that point alone they have probably broken their trust with the party loyalists who have hitherto supported it. They Florida Republican Party leadership need to be held to account.
Unfortunately, this is a hard lesson, regardless of which way the race goes. Never trust a career politician, nor the party of career politicians that feed off of the continued election of these types. We have been betrayed on several levels already, and it might mean some more years of betrayal politics in Fla until the business of the state can be set right again.
Here are the comments from George Blumel, my friend whom I trust.
Title of the email: "Win or lose, we must learn this lesson..."
"The lesson here is never give money to the Republican Party directly –it can and will be used against you and your choices. Maybe you like their choice this time but next time they’ll give to the other guy. They have their own agenda. That applies to the RNC, The NRSC, the NRCC and your State Party, in Florida, the RPOF. In Florida’s primary race for governor, Rick Scott, the clean-government, self-financing outsider, is being vilified by the leadership and they are interfering with the primary election in favor of their career politician.
It takes more than money to win an election but at least Scott is spending his own money. "McCollum has raised just $7.7 million in hard money — but benefited from $3.9 million in help from the state Republican Party (RPOF) and another $9 million in special-interest money from Walt Disney, U.S. Sugar, Florida Power & Light, Publix Supermarkets and other companies, used to buy ads. In total, McCollum and his corporate backers hurled $21 million into his primary." That quote from the Orlando Sentinel doesn't even mention the taxpayer money McCollum has taken directly from the State. The special interests are buying their candidate as usual, but the big contributor that bothers me the most is the $millions from the RPOF. This is money contributed by Repubs for promoting the party and our candidates in the general election, NOT for taking sides in the Primary! OUTRAGEOUS!
The lesson here is NEVER CONTRIBUTE TO THE PARTY --these are the professional political establishment types that have given us corruption and bad government. They are scared to death that an outsider successful businessman will run the State efficiently with regard to taxes, regulations and even-handedness which largely leaves them out of their control. They lose their clout, their perks, their favors, their "importance."
Give to the candidate you favor directly or the funds will be used against your choice for the benefit of the insiders and business as usual. Jim Greer, Charlie Crist and the other crooks in our party have done that and continue to do it. Scott is our one chance to reverse that trend here in Florida –McCollum will happily continue his lifelong feeding at the government trough as he honors not his oath but his commitments to those who put him in office –Sugar, Disney, the utilities he is supposed to regulate, and all the others. "
All I can say is "Amen."
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
In the midst of all the furor regarding illegal aliens stealing across our borders to reap the benefits of an overly indulgent American people, this quote strikes a attitude that is both fundamentally correct and sensible, but also practically unutterable in today's culture of anti-Americanism emanating from the White House.
Interestingly, one ought to read it with Muslims in mind - especially in the light of the furor over the attempt to place a victory mosque at ground zero
Read:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
In applying the previous sentiment to most Muslims either immigrating to the US or born here, it becomes painfully apparent that many of the more literal Muslims do not assimilate. The ones wanting to build a ground zero mosque certainly don't want to. Their aim is to denigrate our liberties and the basis of our liberties - the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and substitute a foreign deity, allah, who is no friend to liberty or kindness.
If Muslims inhabited the early America, there never, never, never would have been a United States of America. Islam spawns thuggery and oppression, not Liberty, especially when it reaches critical mass, as it is doing in France and the Netherlands and other European countries. We will in our own lifetimes witness the takeover of those countries and the complete elimination of what we call Western Democracy.
That cannot be allowed to happen here. Radical Islam is more than a religious idea, it is an oil-financed Jihad bent on destroying and assimilating - like the Borg - the entire world. It has made remarkable progress and has already enlisted many in its cause, most notably, Barack Hussein Obama.
But the struggle is basically about worldviews, and the worldviews in contention are the Judeo-Christian worldview based on the reality of Biblical truth, and Islam, a sixth-century amalgam of militarism and thuggery wrapped in religious garb and enforced by fear and force. The two systems are mutually incompatible.
One of the founders, Samuel Adams, was of the opinion that Muslims could not faithfully discharge the duties of public office in America because they did not accept the core beliefs that established our nation. He was correct.
Interestingly, one ought to read it with Muslims in mind - especially in the light of the furor over the attempt to place a victory mosque at ground zero
Read:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
In applying the previous sentiment to most Muslims either immigrating to the US or born here, it becomes painfully apparent that many of the more literal Muslims do not assimilate. The ones wanting to build a ground zero mosque certainly don't want to. Their aim is to denigrate our liberties and the basis of our liberties - the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, and substitute a foreign deity, allah, who is no friend to liberty or kindness.
If Muslims inhabited the early America, there never, never, never would have been a United States of America. Islam spawns thuggery and oppression, not Liberty, especially when it reaches critical mass, as it is doing in France and the Netherlands and other European countries. We will in our own lifetimes witness the takeover of those countries and the complete elimination of what we call Western Democracy.
That cannot be allowed to happen here. Radical Islam is more than a religious idea, it is an oil-financed Jihad bent on destroying and assimilating - like the Borg - the entire world. It has made remarkable progress and has already enlisted many in its cause, most notably, Barack Hussein Obama.
But the struggle is basically about worldviews, and the worldviews in contention are the Judeo-Christian worldview based on the reality of Biblical truth, and Islam, a sixth-century amalgam of militarism and thuggery wrapped in religious garb and enforced by fear and force. The two systems are mutually incompatible.
One of the founders, Samuel Adams, was of the opinion that Muslims could not faithfully discharge the duties of public office in America because they did not accept the core beliefs that established our nation. He was correct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)