Part 1
Part 2
Monday, October 31, 2011
Violence Erupts after Tunisian Islamists Win Vote
Violence Erupts after Tunisian Islamists Win Vote
Speaking about democracy, this is what you get after Tunisian Islamists win vote. Democracy is nothing but mob rule. Just like Libya, Islamists are taking hold in Tunisia. The massive protests in Tunisia began when a 26 year old street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire on December 17, 2010. He finally died on January 4, 2011. He set himself on fire due to the confiscation of his wares and the humiliation inflicted upon him by a municipal official. This led to mass demonstrations and riots throughout Egypt in protest of social and political issues in the country. It eventually led longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down on January 14, 2011 after ruling for 23 years. Street demonstrations have continued unto the present day. These demonstrations were precipitated by high unemployment, food inflation, and a lack of freedom of speech, etc. It was the most dramatic waves of protest in three decades. It resulted in scores of deaths and injuries. These protests inspired similar protests in other countries throughout the world such as Egypt, which forced the resignation of longtime president Hosni Mubarak, Algeria, Alemen, Jordan, Pakistan, and Libya to name a few.
In spite of the massive protests in Tunisia, it ultimately was no benefit. The Islamists have won the vote so the country is still in chaos. To read more of the story, click on the above link from Newsmax.
Speaking about democracy, this is what you get after Tunisian Islamists win vote. Democracy is nothing but mob rule. Just like Libya, Islamists are taking hold in Tunisia. The massive protests in Tunisia began when a 26 year old street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi, set himself on fire on December 17, 2010. He finally died on January 4, 2011. He set himself on fire due to the confiscation of his wares and the humiliation inflicted upon him by a municipal official. This led to mass demonstrations and riots throughout Egypt in protest of social and political issues in the country. It eventually led longtime president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down on January 14, 2011 after ruling for 23 years. Street demonstrations have continued unto the present day. These demonstrations were precipitated by high unemployment, food inflation, and a lack of freedom of speech, etc. It was the most dramatic waves of protest in three decades. It resulted in scores of deaths and injuries. These protests inspired similar protests in other countries throughout the world such as Egypt, which forced the resignation of longtime president Hosni Mubarak, Algeria, Alemen, Jordan, Pakistan, and Libya to name a few.
In spite of the massive protests in Tunisia, it ultimately was no benefit. The Islamists have won the vote so the country is still in chaos. To read more of the story, click on the above link from Newsmax.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Dottie Rambo: The Gifted Songwriter of the Twentieth Century (Part 10)
He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need
In the Valley He Restoreth My Soul
The Story Behind the Song "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need"
The Story Behind the Song "In the Valley He Restoreth My Soul"
He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need
Sometime after Reba joined her mother and father in the group entitled, "The Singing Rambos", they decided to attend the National Quartet Convention in Memphis, Tennessee. At the time they only sang in churches. That was soon to change as they were asked to sing before the crowd at the convention. It was the first time they had ever done so. The song they sang was "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need." It was a brand new song at the time.
The story behind this great Irish tune, "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need" has a very touching message behind it. Dottie had received a call that her brother, Eddie Lutrell had cancer and the doctors didn't expect him to live very long. She had just begun to write this song but didn't get much completed. Former Louisiana governor Jimmie Davis had asked Dottie to write a song to the tune of "Danny Boy", an Irish national anthem. However, she didn't have the words to compose the song. As I just mentioned, Dottie was informed that Eddie was sick. So when Dottie finished work for the day, she visited Eddie in the hospital and witnessed to him about Jesus. Eddie had at the time had five children with his girlfriend whom he told his family that was his wife. Dottie knew that wasn't so. So she encouraged Eddie to marry his girlfriend so he could give his children a name. So Dottie arranged to have the ceremony at the hospital. Eddie was so sick that they had to put his gown over his head. They weren't able to place his clothes upon him. The ceremony was finally performed and after Eddie and his new bride said "I do", Dottie couldn't control herself. She wept.
Even though Eddie finally wed the woman who bore him five children, the battle still wasn't over. Eddie wasn't saved. Dottie was concerned with his soul. Dottie pleaded and begged him to accept Jesus into his heart. Eddie told her that he had been too mean. He had been in and out of jail and was involved with drugs, etc. Dottie explained to him that Jesus came to save that which was lost. She was explaining to him about the 99 sheep and how Jesus searched for that one lost sheep. Consequently, it seemed all efforts to save him were hopeless. So finally one day she founds the words to begin that famous song that would be the all-time famous song that Dottie wrote:
In the Valley He Restoreth My Soul
The Story Behind the Song "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need"
The Story Behind the Song "In the Valley He Restoreth My Soul"
He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need
Sometime after Reba joined her mother and father in the group entitled, "The Singing Rambos", they decided to attend the National Quartet Convention in Memphis, Tennessee. At the time they only sang in churches. That was soon to change as they were asked to sing before the crowd at the convention. It was the first time they had ever done so. The song they sang was "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need." It was a brand new song at the time.
The story behind this great Irish tune, "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need" has a very touching message behind it. Dottie had received a call that her brother, Eddie Lutrell had cancer and the doctors didn't expect him to live very long. She had just begun to write this song but didn't get much completed. Former Louisiana governor Jimmie Davis had asked Dottie to write a song to the tune of "Danny Boy", an Irish national anthem. However, she didn't have the words to compose the song. As I just mentioned, Dottie was informed that Eddie was sick. So when Dottie finished work for the day, she visited Eddie in the hospital and witnessed to him about Jesus. Eddie had at the time had five children with his girlfriend whom he told his family that was his wife. Dottie knew that wasn't so. So she encouraged Eddie to marry his girlfriend so he could give his children a name. So Dottie arranged to have the ceremony at the hospital. Eddie was so sick that they had to put his gown over his head. They weren't able to place his clothes upon him. The ceremony was finally performed and after Eddie and his new bride said "I do", Dottie couldn't control herself. She wept.
Even though Eddie finally wed the woman who bore him five children, the battle still wasn't over. Eddie wasn't saved. Dottie was concerned with his soul. Dottie pleaded and begged him to accept Jesus into his heart. Eddie told her that he had been too mean. He had been in and out of jail and was involved with drugs, etc. Dottie explained to him that Jesus came to save that which was lost. She was explaining to him about the 99 sheep and how Jesus searched for that one lost sheep. Consequently, it seemed all efforts to save him were hopeless. So finally one day she founds the words to begin that famous song that would be the all-time famous song that Dottie wrote:
Amazing Grace Shall Always be My Song of Praise
For it was grace that taught my heart to fear.
I do not know just why he came to love me so.
He looked beyond my fault and saw my need.
Chorus:
I shall forever lift mine eyes to Calvary
To view the rugged cross where Jesus died for me.
How marvelous the grace that caught my falling soul.
He looked beyond my fault and saw my need.
Dottie had finally found the inspiration to write that song. She set the words to the tune of the Irish anthem "Danny Boy." It was sometime later that she felt impressed by the Holy Spirit that Eddie was okay. One day after work she went to see Eddie and told her that he asked Jesus to come into his heart. Dottie was thrilled. At his funeral she sang the song "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need.
In the Valley He Restoreth My Soul
Like the song I just mentioned, this song also revolved around Dottie's brother, Eddie Lutrell. At Dottie's homegoing funeral, which I posted, Pastor Emeritus L. H. Hardwick Jr. was testifying of Dottie writing this particular song. He was mentioning about remembering when Buck and Dottie wrere singing in a group called the Gospel Echoes. He was talking about Dottie's brother Eddie who was sick and they were concerned about Eddie's Soul. One day Pastor Hardwick went with Buck and Dottie to the hospital in Lebanon, Ohio to see Eddie. He was very sick. It was during the evening as they were driving back that Pastor Hardwick and Buck were sitting up front reminiscing about the visit they had with Eddie. Dottie was in the back seat. All of a sudden she started reciting the words to this new song.
When I'm low in spirit I cry Lord lift me up
I want to go higher with thee.
But nothing grows high on a mountain
So he picked out a valley for me.
And he leads me beside still waters
Somewhere in the valley below.
And he draws me aside to be tested and tried.
But in the valley he restoreth my soul.
It's dark as a dungeon and the sun seldom shines
And I question Lord why must this be.
Then he tells me there's strength in my sorrow
And there's victory in trials for me.
Then he leads me beside still waters
Somewhere in the valley below
And he draws me aside to be tested and tried.
But in the valley he restoreth my soul.
This will be the last post on Dottie Rambo: The Gifted Songwriter of the Twentieth Century until I receive the book I ordered from Amazon entitled, The Legacy of Buck and Dottie Rambo. The information in this book will fill me in with needed details in certain spots.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
GBTV: The Truth About Occupy Wall Street
Glenn Beck produced this live-streaming episode on Monday October 24, 2011. In this episode, he reveals the truth about Occupy Wall Street.
Friday, October 28, 2011
An Americanized Version of Libya isn't Likely to Happen
Libyan Leader Declares Nation Islamic, Sharia Law to be Implemented
It hasn't but a week since Libya's dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been overthrown and Libya's transitional leader has declared it an Islamic nation. Sharia Law will be implemented. That says much for democracy in the Middle East. Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas was speaking about the situation the other day in one of his articles in Owensboro's newspaper in Kentucky. The State Department and American officials have been euphoric over the demise of Libya's dictator. Gadhafi was a thug during his 42 year rule in Libya. Many political pundits and idealists have spoken of democracy coming to the Middle East. This idea that democracy is such a wonderful thing is crazy. How can a country in the Middle East experience democracy when they don't have a foundation to establish a democracy? Libya knows nothing of self governance. Self governance doesn't work in a country when its people have been under the oppression of a brutal dictator for four decades. Libya knows nothing of the values that made America great.
The concept of creating a Libya based upon the model of the United States may sound great to those that are naieve and ignorant, but it will never work. I love America and thank God for the freedom that we have to worship God, labor, and live our lives as we please. However, freedom demands responsibility and freedom is of no value to a people if they know nothing of self governance. I want to quote what Founding Father John Adams stating in making reference to the U.S. Constitution as the framework of government. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. America's system of government won't work in a country that embraces Islam, which doesn't support and recognize freedom of religion for all its citizens. Islam in the Middle East teaches to kill the infidel. Islam believes in waging jihad in the Middle East. A religion such as Islam isn't compatible to democracy.
The reason why freedom worked in America is because our forefathers knew the God of the Bible. They dedicated this nation to God. They were ruled by the king that lived within their hearts. That was Christ Jesus. As a result, they were able to govern themselves. They had a strong moral fiber which made it possible to ensure maximum freedom to all Americans. Freedom is a wonderful thing if the people of a country understand how valuable freedom is. They must be responsible and productive if freedom is to work. Freedom that's handled irresponsibly leads to chaos and turmoil which will eventually end in tyranny.
According to Thomas, we have been assured by various sources throughout the "Arab Spring" that these revolutionaries are genuine democrats who desire free elections and will guarantee at least some rights to women, religious minorities, and even political opponents. However Muslims have attacked Coptic Christians and their churches in Libya. There's no way Libya will ever turn around if Sharia Law is implemented. No country can be democratic if the religion of Islam holds sway. As Thomas says, if there's real progress to be made towards representative democracy in Libya, then the first step must be to rewrite the National Transition Council's draft constitution. The current draft says Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation is Sharia Law. There's no hope for a country like that. The question is who will take the reins of Libya? So far it's going in the wrong direction. This is a ripe time for Libya to be taken over by radical Islamist groups. If that happens, it will be a bloodbath in Libya.
As I've just mentioned, Libya's no hotbed for democracy. The situation could grow worse over time. To believe that Libya could ever model the United States in its form of government is wishful thinking.
Click on the above link from Newsmax to read the article.
It hasn't but a week since Libya's dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been overthrown and Libya's transitional leader has declared it an Islamic nation. Sharia Law will be implemented. That says much for democracy in the Middle East. Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas was speaking about the situation the other day in one of his articles in Owensboro's newspaper in Kentucky. The State Department and American officials have been euphoric over the demise of Libya's dictator. Gadhafi was a thug during his 42 year rule in Libya. Many political pundits and idealists have spoken of democracy coming to the Middle East. This idea that democracy is such a wonderful thing is crazy. How can a country in the Middle East experience democracy when they don't have a foundation to establish a democracy? Libya knows nothing of self governance. Self governance doesn't work in a country when its people have been under the oppression of a brutal dictator for four decades. Libya knows nothing of the values that made America great.
The concept of creating a Libya based upon the model of the United States may sound great to those that are naieve and ignorant, but it will never work. I love America and thank God for the freedom that we have to worship God, labor, and live our lives as we please. However, freedom demands responsibility and freedom is of no value to a people if they know nothing of self governance. I want to quote what Founding Father John Adams stating in making reference to the U.S. Constitution as the framework of government. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. America's system of government won't work in a country that embraces Islam, which doesn't support and recognize freedom of religion for all its citizens. Islam in the Middle East teaches to kill the infidel. Islam believes in waging jihad in the Middle East. A religion such as Islam isn't compatible to democracy.
The reason why freedom worked in America is because our forefathers knew the God of the Bible. They dedicated this nation to God. They were ruled by the king that lived within their hearts. That was Christ Jesus. As a result, they were able to govern themselves. They had a strong moral fiber which made it possible to ensure maximum freedom to all Americans. Freedom is a wonderful thing if the people of a country understand how valuable freedom is. They must be responsible and productive if freedom is to work. Freedom that's handled irresponsibly leads to chaos and turmoil which will eventually end in tyranny.
According to Thomas, we have been assured by various sources throughout the "Arab Spring" that these revolutionaries are genuine democrats who desire free elections and will guarantee at least some rights to women, religious minorities, and even political opponents. However Muslims have attacked Coptic Christians and their churches in Libya. There's no way Libya will ever turn around if Sharia Law is implemented. No country can be democratic if the religion of Islam holds sway. As Thomas says, if there's real progress to be made towards representative democracy in Libya, then the first step must be to rewrite the National Transition Council's draft constitution. The current draft says Islam is the religion of the state and the principle source of legislation is Sharia Law. There's no hope for a country like that. The question is who will take the reins of Libya? So far it's going in the wrong direction. This is a ripe time for Libya to be taken over by radical Islamist groups. If that happens, it will be a bloodbath in Libya.
As I've just mentioned, Libya's no hotbed for democracy. The situation could grow worse over time. To believe that Libya could ever model the United States in its form of government is wishful thinking.
Click on the above link from Newsmax to read the article.
Herman Cain is the GOP Front Runner For Now
Fox News Poll: GOP Primary Voters Get On The Cain Train Fox News
As of present, Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, is the GOP front runner. According to a Fox News poll this past Wednesday, Cain's support has quadrupled among GOP primary voters since late August. At the time his approval rating stood at 6%. Since that time after three debates in September, his approval rating jumped to 17%. At this particular time Cain is the front runner for the GOP. How long his approval rating will remain at the top spot remains unknown. I was glancing at an article from Newsmax just a minute ago and pollster Scott Rasmussen says to not count Texas Governor Rick Perry out as a presidential contender. The puppet masters control the election process anyway so whomever they desire to win the nomination they'll find a way to make sure it happens.
One of the reasons for Cain's popularity is that he appeals to the Tea Party movement. Many registered Republicans identify themselves with the Tea Party movement. He captures 32% to Romney's 8% to those that align themselves with the Tea Party. Cain also has an advantage among white evangelicals. Cain has a 15% point advantage over Romney and Gingrich amongst those white evangelicals. Another thing that helps Cain is the media coverage of his 9-9-9 tax plan and his upbeat speaking style. Cain likes to tout himself as a political "virgin" basically because he's never held elective office before. However, Cain has worked for the Federal Reserve in Kansas City, which means he has some political experience working for them. Cain never says much about working for the Federal Reserve. He knows how crooked and insiduous the FED is even though he won't mention it. He does know something about politics since he worked for the FED.
One of the criticisms that Bill O'Reilly expresses when evaluating Herman Cain is the fact he's not knowledgeable about foreign policy. Herman Cain didn't show leadership in the earlier debates this year when asked what he would do about the war in Afghanistan. However, the forces of Nimrod have a stake in world affairs and all the president does is follow orders from the powers above (not Heaven) concerning foreign policy. The problem I have with Herman Cain is the fact he reneged on a comment he made about Muslims concerning the constructing of mosques this past summer. He said that could lead to Sharia Law being sneaked in. He later apologized for his statements. I was troubled about that because the goal of CAIR and Muslim front groups is to propagate Islam and make it an acceptable religion in American society. I guarantee you that Sharia Law will be part of the equation. He should call out Islam for what it is without flinching. We don't need a president who will be cozying up to Muslims.
To read the story from Fox News, click on the above link from FoxNews.com to read the story about Herman Cain's front runner status.
Talking Points: The Herman Cain Factor
As of present, Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, is the GOP front runner. According to a Fox News poll this past Wednesday, Cain's support has quadrupled among GOP primary voters since late August. At the time his approval rating stood at 6%. Since that time after three debates in September, his approval rating jumped to 17%. At this particular time Cain is the front runner for the GOP. How long his approval rating will remain at the top spot remains unknown. I was glancing at an article from Newsmax just a minute ago and pollster Scott Rasmussen says to not count Texas Governor Rick Perry out as a presidential contender. The puppet masters control the election process anyway so whomever they desire to win the nomination they'll find a way to make sure it happens.
One of the reasons for Cain's popularity is that he appeals to the Tea Party movement. Many registered Republicans identify themselves with the Tea Party movement. He captures 32% to Romney's 8% to those that align themselves with the Tea Party. Cain also has an advantage among white evangelicals. Cain has a 15% point advantage over Romney and Gingrich amongst those white evangelicals. Another thing that helps Cain is the media coverage of his 9-9-9 tax plan and his upbeat speaking style. Cain likes to tout himself as a political "virgin" basically because he's never held elective office before. However, Cain has worked for the Federal Reserve in Kansas City, which means he has some political experience working for them. Cain never says much about working for the Federal Reserve. He knows how crooked and insiduous the FED is even though he won't mention it. He does know something about politics since he worked for the FED.
One of the criticisms that Bill O'Reilly expresses when evaluating Herman Cain is the fact he's not knowledgeable about foreign policy. Herman Cain didn't show leadership in the earlier debates this year when asked what he would do about the war in Afghanistan. However, the forces of Nimrod have a stake in world affairs and all the president does is follow orders from the powers above (not Heaven) concerning foreign policy. The problem I have with Herman Cain is the fact he reneged on a comment he made about Muslims concerning the constructing of mosques this past summer. He said that could lead to Sharia Law being sneaked in. He later apologized for his statements. I was troubled about that because the goal of CAIR and Muslim front groups is to propagate Islam and make it an acceptable religion in American society. I guarantee you that Sharia Law will be part of the equation. He should call out Islam for what it is without flinching. We don't need a president who will be cozying up to Muslims.
To read the story from Fox News, click on the above link from FoxNews.com to read the story about Herman Cain's front runner status.
Talking Points: The Herman Cain Factor
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Instead of Blaming Capitalism, Prosecute Those That Have Broken the Law
Occupy Wall Street One Month Capitalism The Daily Caller
I have linked an article dated from September 17, 2011 from the Daily Caller which speaks about the group protesting around Wall Street. The group is dubbed "Occupy Wall Street". They've been camping around New York's Zuccoti Park for over a month now. Their stated purpose for protesting Wall Street is to call attention to the corporate greed and abuse from Wall Street. This particular group has accomplished nothing. I believe their efforts are misguided. I don't deny the fact that there's greed and corruption on Wall Street. There are some corporations that are corrupt. America witnessed the excesses of greed in September 2008 with the revelation of the mortgage scandal involving Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac. A result of this was the TARP bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and other banks using taxpayer dollars to supposedly keep these businesses afloat or the nation would "sink" into a deep depression. I was very appalled at what took place. I was very perturbed over the fact that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson under former president George W. Bush administered the bailouts and these investment banks in turn squandered the bailout money that was supposed to keep them afloat. What really troubled me was the cozy relationship the federal government has with these major businesses. We can blame Wall Street all we want for the corruption that takes place, but anytime you see corruption on Wall Street, you will find the federal government propping them up.
When one studies the events that caused the housing crisis, we find that the federal government is the guilty culprit. They forced banks to make loans to minorities and other people who couldn't afford to take out a loan on a house. That's what placed us into a bind. I will repeat the statement I made yesterday. Anytime you have government and business in alliance with one another, you're going to find high levels of corruption. Government does have a cozy relationship with huge corporations and investment banks. For the last few administrations from Clinton to Obama, there have been cronies in the executive branch and in Congress that have represented investment bank Goldman Sachs in various levels of government. Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson once worked for Goldman Sachs. Former New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine also worked for Godlman Sachs. There are numerous examples of the federal government having a cozy relationship with huge businesses.
Even though there are negative aspects to capitalism, the answer isn't to dismantle capitalism. Capitalism has allowed America to experienced unprecedented prosperity throughout its 235 years of existence. It allows for entrepreneurs to use their God-given talents to create a product that will best serve our country. I do know there has to be limited regulations placed upon business to prevent monopolies from forming or for businesses that engage in fraud and abuse. The government does have a role to protect the American people, but it has no role to micromanage America's economy.
Instead of protesting Wall Street in general, the protesters need to zero in on those major corporations and investment banks that have violated federal and state laws. First of all, the federal government has no business using taxpayer dollars to bail out failing businesses and banks. If a corporation can't balance its books, then they deserve to collapse. It's not healthy to allow those assets to remain in a failing business. Capitalism allows not only for business to succeed, but it also allows for business to fail. If a business doesn't produce a product that satisfies its customers, then it deserve to fail. Just because a business is huge doesn't mean that the government should be propping them up. Instead, those huge corporations need to be broken up through the anti-trust laws. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG should've been allowed to fail and broken up. A business that's too big to fail needs to fail. That's good for the free market. It will allow for a freer market when these corporate monopolies fail. The government has no business in choosing winners and losers in the private sector. Failing businesses shouldn't be awarded tax dollars to keep them afloat.
The problem isn't capitalism in general--it's those corporations that have violated the law. The guilty culprits should be brought to trial and prosecuted for their crimes. All Congressmen and Senators that are involved in corporate corruption such as the housing crisis should be impeached and thrown out of office. Barney Frank shouldn't be in Congress after what took place three years ago. The voters in Massachusetts don't have any sense in re-electing him. The problem isn't capitalism. Don't blame capitalism in general for America's economic woes. It's those that have violated the law and have taken advantage of the consumer that should be prosecuted. The capitalistic system is good. It's those that use capitalism for their own greedy purposes that need to be prosecuted. This should be common sense. However, in today's society there's not much common sense remaining.
I have linked an article dated from September 17, 2011 from the Daily Caller which speaks about the group protesting around Wall Street. The group is dubbed "Occupy Wall Street". They've been camping around New York's Zuccoti Park for over a month now. Their stated purpose for protesting Wall Street is to call attention to the corporate greed and abuse from Wall Street. This particular group has accomplished nothing. I believe their efforts are misguided. I don't deny the fact that there's greed and corruption on Wall Street. There are some corporations that are corrupt. America witnessed the excesses of greed in September 2008 with the revelation of the mortgage scandal involving Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac. A result of this was the TARP bailout of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, and other banks using taxpayer dollars to supposedly keep these businesses afloat or the nation would "sink" into a deep depression. I was very appalled at what took place. I was very perturbed over the fact that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson under former president George W. Bush administered the bailouts and these investment banks in turn squandered the bailout money that was supposed to keep them afloat. What really troubled me was the cozy relationship the federal government has with these major businesses. We can blame Wall Street all we want for the corruption that takes place, but anytime you see corruption on Wall Street, you will find the federal government propping them up.
When one studies the events that caused the housing crisis, we find that the federal government is the guilty culprit. They forced banks to make loans to minorities and other people who couldn't afford to take out a loan on a house. That's what placed us into a bind. I will repeat the statement I made yesterday. Anytime you have government and business in alliance with one another, you're going to find high levels of corruption. Government does have a cozy relationship with huge corporations and investment banks. For the last few administrations from Clinton to Obama, there have been cronies in the executive branch and in Congress that have represented investment bank Goldman Sachs in various levels of government. Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson once worked for Goldman Sachs. Former New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine also worked for Godlman Sachs. There are numerous examples of the federal government having a cozy relationship with huge businesses.
Even though there are negative aspects to capitalism, the answer isn't to dismantle capitalism. Capitalism has allowed America to experienced unprecedented prosperity throughout its 235 years of existence. It allows for entrepreneurs to use their God-given talents to create a product that will best serve our country. I do know there has to be limited regulations placed upon business to prevent monopolies from forming or for businesses that engage in fraud and abuse. The government does have a role to protect the American people, but it has no role to micromanage America's economy.
Instead of protesting Wall Street in general, the protesters need to zero in on those major corporations and investment banks that have violated federal and state laws. First of all, the federal government has no business using taxpayer dollars to bail out failing businesses and banks. If a corporation can't balance its books, then they deserve to collapse. It's not healthy to allow those assets to remain in a failing business. Capitalism allows not only for business to succeed, but it also allows for business to fail. If a business doesn't produce a product that satisfies its customers, then it deserve to fail. Just because a business is huge doesn't mean that the government should be propping them up. Instead, those huge corporations need to be broken up through the anti-trust laws. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG should've been allowed to fail and broken up. A business that's too big to fail needs to fail. That's good for the free market. It will allow for a freer market when these corporate monopolies fail. The government has no business in choosing winners and losers in the private sector. Failing businesses shouldn't be awarded tax dollars to keep them afloat.
The problem isn't capitalism in general--it's those corporations that have violated the law. The guilty culprits should be brought to trial and prosecuted for their crimes. All Congressmen and Senators that are involved in corporate corruption such as the housing crisis should be impeached and thrown out of office. Barney Frank shouldn't be in Congress after what took place three years ago. The voters in Massachusetts don't have any sense in re-electing him. The problem isn't capitalism. Don't blame capitalism in general for America's economic woes. It's those that have violated the law and have taken advantage of the consumer that should be prosecuted. The capitalistic system is good. It's those that use capitalism for their own greedy purposes that need to be prosecuted. This should be common sense. However, in today's society there's not much common sense remaining.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The American Economy May Recover If Left Alone
Thomas Sowell: Washington's Meddling Wrecking Economy
I know that the title of this post wouldn't fly well to all those protesters that are camping around Wall Street in New York. For the last last few weeks dating September 17, 2011, a group of protesters dubbed "Occupy Wall Street" have been camping around Zuccoti Park protesting the excessive greed of Wall Street. This group of people has been sitting around for weeks accomplishing nothing productive. I do know there are excesses to capitalism. I do know that greed exists. Even though there are excesses to capitalism, the answer isn't to destroy capitalism, which is the agenda of the Obama administration. The answer is prosecute those guilty of violating the law. However, these misguided protesters seem to think the answer is to protest Wall Street in general. They need to be protesting at Capitol Hill and the White House. Anytime there's greed and corruption in major corporations, you'll find the federal government behind it. When we travel back a few years ago to examine the mortgage meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for example, we've learned the federal government was the one that instigated the housing crisis by mandating major banks to provide loans to minorities to purchase a house that they can't afford through subprime mortgages. Why weren't Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and former Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) impeached for their role in the housing crisis? Both of these elected elite were chairman of the Senate Banking Committee that oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's a travesty! We always want to point the finger at these multinational corporations failing to recognize the federal government props them up, both Democrat and Republican. Anytime the government and huge corporations form alliances with one another, you will find corruption that stinks to high Heavens.
Most of the problem we find with the American economy is the federal government overreaching in the arena of business. I do admit that there needs to be government oversight in limited areas involving fraud, abuse, etc. However, it's not the government's role to micromanage the economy. That's what we find the government doing on a continual basis. They impose burdensome regulations that make it virtually impossible for businesses to hire new workers. There are so many stipulations placed upon small and medium-sized businesses that make it difficult for them to operate properly. The government also allows the EPA to impose regulations upon businesses, which it has no constitutional authority to do so. I'm not implying that I'm for pollution or that there shouldn't be reasonable environmental laws protecting land, air, and water. However, we shouldn't allow the EPA to impose their radical socialist agenda upon the American people. We can have a clean environment without wrecking the economy. However, the goal of the radical environmental groups as well as the socialists in Congress is the takedown of capitalism. They're doing a great job of it.
I have an article I linked up from Newsmax where Thomas Sowell from the Hoover Institute states that Washington's meddling in the economy is destroying America. It's a must-read article. He is correct. If the government would leave business alone for the most part and allow the private sector to determine supply and demand, then the economy would recover and more jobs will be created. As long as the Republicans are complicit with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, the American economy will continue going south. Sadly, that's the agenda which is the destruction of America. They've almost succeeded.
I know that the title of this post wouldn't fly well to all those protesters that are camping around Wall Street in New York. For the last last few weeks dating September 17, 2011, a group of protesters dubbed "Occupy Wall Street" have been camping around Zuccoti Park protesting the excessive greed of Wall Street. This group of people has been sitting around for weeks accomplishing nothing productive. I do know there are excesses to capitalism. I do know that greed exists. Even though there are excesses to capitalism, the answer isn't to destroy capitalism, which is the agenda of the Obama administration. The answer is prosecute those guilty of violating the law. However, these misguided protesters seem to think the answer is to protest Wall Street in general. They need to be protesting at Capitol Hill and the White House. Anytime there's greed and corruption in major corporations, you'll find the federal government behind it. When we travel back a few years ago to examine the mortgage meltdown of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for example, we've learned the federal government was the one that instigated the housing crisis by mandating major banks to provide loans to minorities to purchase a house that they can't afford through subprime mortgages. Why weren't Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and former Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT) impeached for their role in the housing crisis? Both of these elected elite were chairman of the Senate Banking Committee that oversaw Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It's a travesty! We always want to point the finger at these multinational corporations failing to recognize the federal government props them up, both Democrat and Republican. Anytime the government and huge corporations form alliances with one another, you will find corruption that stinks to high Heavens.
Most of the problem we find with the American economy is the federal government overreaching in the arena of business. I do admit that there needs to be government oversight in limited areas involving fraud, abuse, etc. However, it's not the government's role to micromanage the economy. That's what we find the government doing on a continual basis. They impose burdensome regulations that make it virtually impossible for businesses to hire new workers. There are so many stipulations placed upon small and medium-sized businesses that make it difficult for them to operate properly. The government also allows the EPA to impose regulations upon businesses, which it has no constitutional authority to do so. I'm not implying that I'm for pollution or that there shouldn't be reasonable environmental laws protecting land, air, and water. However, we shouldn't allow the EPA to impose their radical socialist agenda upon the American people. We can have a clean environment without wrecking the economy. However, the goal of the radical environmental groups as well as the socialists in Congress is the takedown of capitalism. They're doing a great job of it.
I have an article I linked up from Newsmax where Thomas Sowell from the Hoover Institute states that Washington's meddling in the economy is destroying America. It's a must-read article. He is correct. If the government would leave business alone for the most part and allow the private sector to determine supply and demand, then the economy would recover and more jobs will be created. As long as the Republicans are complicit with President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, the American economy will continue going south. Sadly, that's the agenda which is the destruction of America. They've almost succeeded.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Kentucky Pro-Life Group Endorses David Williams for Governor
Kentucky Pro-Life Group Endorses David Williams for Governor LifeNews.com
Kentucky Senate President and Gubernatorial candidate David Williams endorsed by Kentucky Right to Life
Right to Life Endorses David Williams
I'm getting sick and tired of these Republican politicians always wrapping themselves around the banner of being "pro-life" when they won't do anything to solve the abortion issue. It's a good campaign issue, but they use it to appeal to a core of voters. In the case of Kentucky Senator David Williams, he uses the issue to appeal to a core of conservative voters in the state of Kentucky, most notably those that were supported of Louisville businessman Phil Moffett, who was defeated by Kentucky gubernatorial candidate David Williams in the May primary. I'm sure Williams has voted right on the issue of abortion, but is he willing to place his full weight behind stemming the tide of abortions that take place in Kentucky?
First of all, I devote hardly any time studying Kentucky politics. I should since I live in the state of Kentucky. That's my fault there. I'm always more interested in reading the news that revolves around Washington, D.C. and the nation as a whole. What's even worse is I don't know much about David Williams Senate career in Kentucky. He's held the office since 1987. In 2000, when the state Senate turned Republican, Williams was chosen as the Senate President and has held that post ever since. I didn't vote for Williams because of some of his dealings in the Senate. I voted for Tea Party backed candidate Phil Moffett instead.
I want to emphasize I'm not making light of the right to life issue. One of the basic fundamentals of life is the right to life. God gives life and God is the one who takes life away. No man has the right to snuff out the life of another person. In saying that, I'm not referring to capital punishment where a person has committed murder. That's a totally different case in which I'm not going to expound upon in this post. I don't knowingly vote for politicians if they're supportive of abortion. I'm appalled at current Kentucky Steve Beshear's comments comparing pro-life activists to Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. I will not vote for him in next month's gubernatorial election.
I know that abortion is not the only issue that faces Kentucky and our nation as a whole. I'm not a single-issue candidate. I look at the whole spectrum of issues when judging a candidate. However, the issue of life is a fundamental issue that's not debatable. Psalms 139:14 says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We don't have the right to destroy that which God has created. It should be common sense that abortion should never be up for debate. I know the questions that are posed concerning rape and incest. The answer to those questions is to place the child for adoption if the mother is unable to care for the child. There are numerous couples waiting in line to adopt children. There's an answer to all these hypothetical situations that are constantly being brought up.
As I said earlier, I'm tired of Republican candidates using the pro-life plank as a campaign issue to appeal to a certain segment of voters but they have no intention of using their efforts to ending abortion. I would have more respect for them if they would refuse to campaign on abortion then claim they're pro-life as a means to have an issue to appeal to conservative voters. The right to life issue is more serious than just a campaign issue. What is the value of life if it's placed in the hands of a tribunal or a doctor? Life is worth what it is because we are created in the image of God. God gives meaning to life. When you remove God from the equation, then the issue of life becomes arbitrary. The secular humanists can belittle the issue of when an unborn baby becomes a human but I say without reservation that life if worth preserving because of what God says in the Bible. No man has the right to play God and determine when life should or shouldn't end.
Right to Life Endorses David Williams
I'm getting sick and tired of these Republican politicians always wrapping themselves around the banner of being "pro-life" when they won't do anything to solve the abortion issue. It's a good campaign issue, but they use it to appeal to a core of voters. In the case of Kentucky Senator David Williams, he uses the issue to appeal to a core of conservative voters in the state of Kentucky, most notably those that were supported of Louisville businessman Phil Moffett, who was defeated by Kentucky gubernatorial candidate David Williams in the May primary. I'm sure Williams has voted right on the issue of abortion, but is he willing to place his full weight behind stemming the tide of abortions that take place in Kentucky?
First of all, I devote hardly any time studying Kentucky politics. I should since I live in the state of Kentucky. That's my fault there. I'm always more interested in reading the news that revolves around Washington, D.C. and the nation as a whole. What's even worse is I don't know much about David Williams Senate career in Kentucky. He's held the office since 1987. In 2000, when the state Senate turned Republican, Williams was chosen as the Senate President and has held that post ever since. I didn't vote for Williams because of some of his dealings in the Senate. I voted for Tea Party backed candidate Phil Moffett instead.
I want to emphasize I'm not making light of the right to life issue. One of the basic fundamentals of life is the right to life. God gives life and God is the one who takes life away. No man has the right to snuff out the life of another person. In saying that, I'm not referring to capital punishment where a person has committed murder. That's a totally different case in which I'm not going to expound upon in this post. I don't knowingly vote for politicians if they're supportive of abortion. I'm appalled at current Kentucky Steve Beshear's comments comparing pro-life activists to Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. I will not vote for him in next month's gubernatorial election.
I know that abortion is not the only issue that faces Kentucky and our nation as a whole. I'm not a single-issue candidate. I look at the whole spectrum of issues when judging a candidate. However, the issue of life is a fundamental issue that's not debatable. Psalms 139:14 says that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. We don't have the right to destroy that which God has created. It should be common sense that abortion should never be up for debate. I know the questions that are posed concerning rape and incest. The answer to those questions is to place the child for adoption if the mother is unable to care for the child. There are numerous couples waiting in line to adopt children. There's an answer to all these hypothetical situations that are constantly being brought up.
As I said earlier, I'm tired of Republican candidates using the pro-life plank as a campaign issue to appeal to a certain segment of voters but they have no intention of using their efforts to ending abortion. I would have more respect for them if they would refuse to campaign on abortion then claim they're pro-life as a means to have an issue to appeal to conservative voters. The right to life issue is more serious than just a campaign issue. What is the value of life if it's placed in the hands of a tribunal or a doctor? Life is worth what it is because we are created in the image of God. God gives meaning to life. When you remove God from the equation, then the issue of life becomes arbitrary. The secular humanists can belittle the issue of when an unborn baby becomes a human but I say without reservation that life if worth preserving because of what God says in the Bible. No man has the right to play God and determine when life should or shouldn't end.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Joe Biden Stands By Rape Reference to GOP
All Huffy, Joe Biden Stands By Rape Reference to GOP - HUMAN EVENTS
Vice President Joe Biden with Human Events reporter
Vice President Joe Biden is a pro at making foolish comments. This particular scenario is no exception. Biden became testy with a Human Events reporter when asked if he would like to retract his comments that the number of sexual assaults would increase if the Republicans in the Senate don't sign onto President Obama's latest jobs proposal. Biden became defensive then stated what he said earlier when he stated, "Murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise," "if the Democrats agenda isn't passed," he added. It was on Tuesday at the University of Pennsylvania where Biden made his case for another round of government spending was needed to prevent sexual assaults. "It's not temporary 'administration's proposed stimulus' when the 911 call comes in and a woman's being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape. It's not temporary to that woman." In that speech he wished Republicans themselves were rape victims. His point in making that statement was the Republicans need to know what it's like to be on the side on the woman and a gun is placed to her head.
I would like to know how that makes sense? How will Congress passing Obama's proposed "jobs bill" create the needed jobs necessary to revive the economy? Who will be awarded the jobs? Will it be Obama's cronies? Will czar jobs be created. I can remember the stimulus bill being passed in January of 2009. It didn't do anything to help the average American. Instead, it went to the unions and those groups that supported Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. It also used for bailouts as well. Those that needed the help didn't receive the help. How am I supposed to believe another round of government spending is going to revive the economy?
I can understand that a person can be tempted to steal when he doesn't have a job nor a means to provide for his family. How you can equate high levels of unemployment to an increased number of rapes flies in the face of logic. The rapist is a rapist because of what he allows to enter into his mind prior to committing the act. It has nothing to do with poverty. You can't equate rape with poverty. There are numerous sexual perverts that are wealthy. The socioeconomic status of a man has nothing to do with whether or not he will become a rapist. That's the result of the filth he has allowed to enter into his heart by means of pornography, etc.
Joe Biden is a despicable politician. He always makes numerous gaffes. This one was preposterous. He's been in Washington too long. Let's hope we can defeat President Obama and Vice President Biden in next year's presidential election. Biden should resign but I know that won't happen. He should be gone immediately. But there's no Congressman in Washington that will hold Vice President Biden accountable. How pathetic!
Vice President Joe Biden is a pro at making foolish comments. This particular scenario is no exception. Biden became testy with a Human Events reporter when asked if he would like to retract his comments that the number of sexual assaults would increase if the Republicans in the Senate don't sign onto President Obama's latest jobs proposal. Biden became defensive then stated what he said earlier when he stated, "Murder will continue to rise, rape will continue to rise, all crimes will continue to rise," "if the Democrats agenda isn't passed," he added. It was on Tuesday at the University of Pennsylvania where Biden made his case for another round of government spending was needed to prevent sexual assaults. "It's not temporary 'administration's proposed stimulus' when the 911 call comes in and a woman's being raped, if a cop shows up in time to prevent the rape. It's not temporary to that woman." In that speech he wished Republicans themselves were rape victims. His point in making that statement was the Republicans need to know what it's like to be on the side on the woman and a gun is placed to her head.
I would like to know how that makes sense? How will Congress passing Obama's proposed "jobs bill" create the needed jobs necessary to revive the economy? Who will be awarded the jobs? Will it be Obama's cronies? Will czar jobs be created. I can remember the stimulus bill being passed in January of 2009. It didn't do anything to help the average American. Instead, it went to the unions and those groups that supported Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. It also used for bailouts as well. Those that needed the help didn't receive the help. How am I supposed to believe another round of government spending is going to revive the economy?
I can understand that a person can be tempted to steal when he doesn't have a job nor a means to provide for his family. How you can equate high levels of unemployment to an increased number of rapes flies in the face of logic. The rapist is a rapist because of what he allows to enter into his mind prior to committing the act. It has nothing to do with poverty. You can't equate rape with poverty. There are numerous sexual perverts that are wealthy. The socioeconomic status of a man has nothing to do with whether or not he will become a rapist. That's the result of the filth he has allowed to enter into his heart by means of pornography, etc.
Joe Biden is a despicable politician. He always makes numerous gaffes. This one was preposterous. He's been in Washington too long. Let's hope we can defeat President Obama and Vice President Biden in next year's presidential election. Biden should resign but I know that won't happen. He should be gone immediately. But there's no Congressman in Washington that will hold Vice President Biden accountable. How pathetic!
Sunday, October 23, 2011
What Does it Mean to be Born Again?
(John 3:1-7) "There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again."
In this passage we read about a man of the Pharisees and a ruler of the Jews named Nicodemus. He went unto Jesus and was asking Jesus a question about the miracles that he performed. Jesus had performed a miracle at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and told him that a man must be born again. If he's not born again, there's no way he can see the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is only entered into as a result of the new birth. We must be careful in distinguishing between the terms "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God". The Kingdom of Heaven will be established upon this earth during the Millennial reign of Christ for a thousand years. There will be a thousand years of peace and tranquility when Jesus comes back with his bride upon this earth. There will be no more sickness and sorrow. Sin will be done away with. Jesus will establish his kingdom at the Mount of Olives. The Kingdom of God is an eternal kingdom without end. It is a Kingdom in which no man can be a part of unless he repents of his sins and accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. It's a spiritual kingdom. It's not a literal physical kindgom like the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of God is a kingdom without end. It will be around when the New Heavens and the New Earth is established following the Millennial reign of Christ.
It was apparent according to Nicodemus' response that he seemed to be confused about the concept of being born again. He asked the question could a man enter into his mother's womb for a second time. There's no way that's possible. He was thinking of being born again in physical terms. Man is born once from his mother's womb as an infant. Once a child is born upon this earth, there's no way from a physical standpoint a child can be born again in the physical sense. However, what Jesus was speaking of was of a spiritual nature. Mankind can never be born again from a physical standpoint. Mankind is born once upon this earth as a sinner. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The Psalmist David in Psalms 51:5 that in sin did my mother conceive me (paraphrasing). Mankind is born in sin. There's no hope for man apart from God. However, Jesus came to this world to die upon a cruel cross so that we can be reconciled to God. What is the way to reconciliation? It's through the new birth. Man is born once physically upon this earth as a sinner. The new birth which is referred to as being born again is spiritual in nature. This new birth means that a sinner has been regenerated. The sinner has been made a new creature. How does a sinner become regenerated? He must be convicted by the Spirit of God. He must recognize and admit that he's a sinner who's sinned before God. He must realize that he's hopeless and apart from God. Once he recognizes that truth, he must repent of his sins and ask Christ to forgive him and come into his heart. Once that act takes place he is born again.
John 6:44 states that unless the Spirit of God draws a man he cannot be saved. In order for a sinner to be saved, he must first be drawn by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God will make the sinner aware about his sinful condition. Unless that takes place, a sinner cannot come to God. Salvation is a spiritual process and God must make the first step towards initiating. A sinner cannot make that first step unless the Spirit woos him. Once that happens, a sinner is a great candidate for salvation. The sinner then must repent of his sins and turn to God. II Corinthians 7:10 says that Godly sorrow worketh repentance. A sinner that possesses a Godly sorrow for his sins is in the position where he can be saved. There must be an awareness of your sinful state and then you must turn to God and turn from your sins and trust him. Unless a sinner does that they can't be saved. Salvation is a work of God, not of man. Mankind cannot work up salvation by himself. It takes the Holy Ghost to begin the process. Then it's incumbent upon the sinner to do business with God.
What does it mean to be born again? II Corinthians 5:17 says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." A person that's born again is a new creature. He possesses a new appetite. The things that he loved prior to salvation he no longer loves because God has created within the regenerated man an appetite for spiritual things. He desires to attend and be faithful to church, pray, seek God, read the Word of God, serve God, etc. His whole life centers around the things of God. A born again experience will clean up his language, his appearance, his philosophy, his whole outlook on life, and his relationship with others. Things are different. There will be a unique and distinct difference within him. God has created the child of God to be conformed to the image of Christ. God saves us to serve him and be a witness and testimony before the whole world. There's nothing greater than being born again knowing your sins are washed away. What a joy it is to serve the Lord and know when you die you'll enter into Heaven for eternity. That's what being born again is all about.
In this passage we read about a man of the Pharisees and a ruler of the Jews named Nicodemus. He went unto Jesus and was asking Jesus a question about the miracles that he performed. Jesus had performed a miracle at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. Jesus spoke to Nicodemus and told him that a man must be born again. If he's not born again, there's no way he can see the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is only entered into as a result of the new birth. We must be careful in distinguishing between the terms "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God". The Kingdom of Heaven will be established upon this earth during the Millennial reign of Christ for a thousand years. There will be a thousand years of peace and tranquility when Jesus comes back with his bride upon this earth. There will be no more sickness and sorrow. Sin will be done away with. Jesus will establish his kingdom at the Mount of Olives. The Kingdom of God is an eternal kingdom without end. It is a Kingdom in which no man can be a part of unless he repents of his sins and accepts Jesus as his Lord and Saviour. It's a spiritual kingdom. It's not a literal physical kindgom like the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of God is a kingdom without end. It will be around when the New Heavens and the New Earth is established following the Millennial reign of Christ.
It was apparent according to Nicodemus' response that he seemed to be confused about the concept of being born again. He asked the question could a man enter into his mother's womb for a second time. There's no way that's possible. He was thinking of being born again in physical terms. Man is born once from his mother's womb as an infant. Once a child is born upon this earth, there's no way from a physical standpoint a child can be born again in the physical sense. However, what Jesus was speaking of was of a spiritual nature. Mankind can never be born again from a physical standpoint. Mankind is born once upon this earth as a sinner. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The Psalmist David in Psalms 51:5 that in sin did my mother conceive me (paraphrasing). Mankind is born in sin. There's no hope for man apart from God. However, Jesus came to this world to die upon a cruel cross so that we can be reconciled to God. What is the way to reconciliation? It's through the new birth. Man is born once physically upon this earth as a sinner. The new birth which is referred to as being born again is spiritual in nature. This new birth means that a sinner has been regenerated. The sinner has been made a new creature. How does a sinner become regenerated? He must be convicted by the Spirit of God. He must recognize and admit that he's a sinner who's sinned before God. He must realize that he's hopeless and apart from God. Once he recognizes that truth, he must repent of his sins and ask Christ to forgive him and come into his heart. Once that act takes place he is born again.
John 6:44 states that unless the Spirit of God draws a man he cannot be saved. In order for a sinner to be saved, he must first be drawn by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God will make the sinner aware about his sinful condition. Unless that takes place, a sinner cannot come to God. Salvation is a spiritual process and God must make the first step towards initiating. A sinner cannot make that first step unless the Spirit woos him. Once that happens, a sinner is a great candidate for salvation. The sinner then must repent of his sins and turn to God. II Corinthians 7:10 says that Godly sorrow worketh repentance. A sinner that possesses a Godly sorrow for his sins is in the position where he can be saved. There must be an awareness of your sinful state and then you must turn to God and turn from your sins and trust him. Unless a sinner does that they can't be saved. Salvation is a work of God, not of man. Mankind cannot work up salvation by himself. It takes the Holy Ghost to begin the process. Then it's incumbent upon the sinner to do business with God.
What does it mean to be born again? II Corinthians 5:17 says, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new." A person that's born again is a new creature. He possesses a new appetite. The things that he loved prior to salvation he no longer loves because God has created within the regenerated man an appetite for spiritual things. He desires to attend and be faithful to church, pray, seek God, read the Word of God, serve God, etc. His whole life centers around the things of God. A born again experience will clean up his language, his appearance, his philosophy, his whole outlook on life, and his relationship with others. Things are different. There will be a unique and distinct difference within him. God has created the child of God to be conformed to the image of Christ. God saves us to serve him and be a witness and testimony before the whole world. There's nothing greater than being born again knowing your sins are washed away. What a joy it is to serve the Lord and know when you die you'll enter into Heaven for eternity. That's what being born again is all about.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
U.S. Troops Reportedly to Leave Iraq by the End of the Year, According to Obama
U.S. Troops to Leave Iraq by Year’s End, Obama Says - NYTimes.com
President Barack Obama in the White House Briefing Room Stating U.S. troops will be home by the holidays.
Yesterday President Obama announced that the last of the U.S. soliders will leave Iraq at the end of this year, which draws to a close eight-and-a-half years of conflict which proved to be divisive given the fact that this was a protracted war. This war helped define the presidency of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. I recall during the second term of George W. Bush how frustrated I was that he kept prolonging the war and he didn't use the full force of the military to crush the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraqi War was another no-win war when it came to defeating the insurgency in Iraq that resulted when former Iraqi dictator Sadamm Hussein was toppled and his troops escaped. This war shouldn't have lasted this long. It's ridiculous. However, I believe it was the forces of Nimrod that was in control of calling the shots.
When President Obama was a U.S. Senator, he was critical of the U.S. fighting in the Iraq War and his opposition to the Iraq War helped fuel his rise to the presidency. When all the troops leave Iraq, there will be a skeleton presence of Marine embassy guards and liasion officers staying where more than a million troops have served. The agreement to leave Iraq by 2011 was made in 2008 when Obama's predecessor George W. Bush was about ready to leave the presidency. Bush made a farewell visit to Iraq when an Iraqi journalist hurled shoes at him.
I hope the President sticks to his word about the rest of the troops leaving Iraq at the end of the year. We're holding him to it. To read the story, click on the above link from the New York Times.
President Barack Obama in the White House Briefing Room Stating U.S. troops will be home by the holidays.Yesterday President Obama announced that the last of the U.S. soliders will leave Iraq at the end of this year, which draws to a close eight-and-a-half years of conflict which proved to be divisive given the fact that this was a protracted war. This war helped define the presidency of Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. I recall during the second term of George W. Bush how frustrated I was that he kept prolonging the war and he didn't use the full force of the military to crush the insurgency in Iraq. The Iraqi War was another no-win war when it came to defeating the insurgency in Iraq that resulted when former Iraqi dictator Sadamm Hussein was toppled and his troops escaped. This war shouldn't have lasted this long. It's ridiculous. However, I believe it was the forces of Nimrod that was in control of calling the shots.
When President Obama was a U.S. Senator, he was critical of the U.S. fighting in the Iraq War and his opposition to the Iraq War helped fuel his rise to the presidency. When all the troops leave Iraq, there will be a skeleton presence of Marine embassy guards and liasion officers staying where more than a million troops have served. The agreement to leave Iraq by 2011 was made in 2008 when Obama's predecessor George W. Bush was about ready to leave the presidency. Bush made a farewell visit to Iraq when an Iraqi journalist hurled shoes at him.
I hope the President sticks to his word about the rest of the troops leaving Iraq at the end of the year. We're holding him to it. To read the story, click on the above link from the New York Times.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Moammar Gadhafi Reportedly Captured and Killed
Gadhafi caught, killed in Libya - Washington Times
According to news sources, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been reportedly captured and killed. I hope that's the case. The question I have is why do the forces of Nimrod want to snuff out Gadhafi? Does it have to do with the master plan of establishing an Islamic caliphate? That's the goal of the Islamic radicals. The Middle East is ripe for a Caliphate given the ouster of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and now the supposed death of Gadhafi in Libya. I know that Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad is slated to be killed next, according to the UK Telegraph. Syria is facing major unrest right now and I say he will be ousted before too long. What concerns me is who's going to take their places in positions of power? We know what took place in Iran in 1979 when the Shah of Iran was overthrown in February of 1979 and the radical Ayatollah Khomeini took over. The radical Islamic movement in the Middle East took a major foothold as a result of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. (Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlvai) I'm not belittling the fact that Gadhafi was a brutal dictator in Libya. We don't want an Ayatollah Khomeini ascending into power in Libya. Given the fact that Libya is rich with oil, whomever takes control of Libya can use oil as a means to blackmail the Western world.
Click on the above link from the Washington Times to read the full story about Gadhafi's supposed capture and death.
According to news sources, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi has been reportedly captured and killed. I hope that's the case. The question I have is why do the forces of Nimrod want to snuff out Gadhafi? Does it have to do with the master plan of establishing an Islamic caliphate? That's the goal of the Islamic radicals. The Middle East is ripe for a Caliphate given the ouster of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and now the supposed death of Gadhafi in Libya. I know that Syrian President Bashar-al-Assad is slated to be killed next, according to the UK Telegraph. Syria is facing major unrest right now and I say he will be ousted before too long. What concerns me is who's going to take their places in positions of power? We know what took place in Iran in 1979 when the Shah of Iran was overthrown in February of 1979 and the radical Ayatollah Khomeini took over. The radical Islamic movement in the Middle East took a major foothold as a result of the overthrow of the Shah of Iran. (Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlvai) I'm not belittling the fact that Gadhafi was a brutal dictator in Libya. We don't want an Ayatollah Khomeini ascending into power in Libya. Given the fact that Libya is rich with oil, whomever takes control of Libya can use oil as a means to blackmail the Western world.
Click on the above link from the Washington Times to read the full story about Gadhafi's supposed capture and death.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The GOP Presidential Debate in Las Vegas
Political Wisdom: The GOP Debate in Las Vegas - Washington Wire - WSJ
Western GOP Debate (Part 1)
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
The Republican presidential debate was held in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday October 18, 2011. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney took the biggest bruising of all the candidates as Texas Governor Rick Perry pounded him over his record as governor of Massachusetts, esp. with him pushing the Massachusetts' state health care law which is Romneycare. The next GOP debate won't be until November 9. Click on the above link to read the article from the Wall Street Journal about the Republican Debate and listen to the Republican debate which I have posted.
Western GOP Debate (Part 1)
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
The Republican presidential debate was held in Las Vegas, Nevada on Tuesday October 18, 2011. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney took the biggest bruising of all the candidates as Texas Governor Rick Perry pounded him over his record as governor of Massachusetts, esp. with him pushing the Massachusetts' state health care law which is Romneycare. The next GOP debate won't be until November 9. Click on the above link to read the article from the Wall Street Journal about the Republican Debate and listen to the Republican debate which I have posted.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
University of Virginia Political Science Professor Larry Sabato States President Obama Would Lose Presidential Election if Held Today
Sabato: Obama to 'Lose Badly' If Election Were Today
University of Virginia Political Science Professor Larry Sabato
In an article from Newsmax University of Virginia Political Science Professor and analyst Larry Sabato made the statement this past Monday October 17, 2011 that if the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama would not only lose, but he would lose badly. I do wholeheartedly concur with that statement--at the moment! Sabato, one of the most quoted "college professors in the land" was giving an assessment based on all the latest data: economic, political, polling, and everything. Given the shape of the economy at this particular moment, I do agree that President Obama would lose right now barring there's no third party candidate running and giving voice to conservative values. Sabato said he would wait until July or August of next year to determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. That's a good idea because things are likely to change. Within the last few months, the president's approval rating has dropped steadily. His approval in handling the economy has received very low ratings. President Obama's poll numbers have been dropping at least since the debt ceiling debate and vote back in August. President Obama's poll numbers have slipped since.
Sabato was giving a state-by-state breakdown to Newsmax concerning how the 2012 presidential election will fare next year. Sabato said that the two swing states that Obama carried in 2008 he could possibly lose in 2012. The two states he mentioned are Indiana and North Carolina. Sabato said Indiana is gone regardless the outcome of the election. He said Florida would be a tough state for Obama to win, esp. if Senator Marco Rubio was to be on the GOP vice presidential ticket. President Obama carried Florida in 2008. Sabato says that Virginia could be an early indication on how well Obama will fare on election night next year.
I concur with Larry Sabato's assessment on President Obama. With that being said, we must take Sabato's prediction in context. There are three key words we must pay attention to: if held today. If the election were held today, President Obama would lose badly. Consequently, given the fact we live in a polarized country and given the fact that some Americans tend to be very fickle, you can't make the false assumption that President Obama is going to be a one-term president. If this was 2012 and President Obama's poll numbers were this low, then I would say his chances of winning are very improbable. However, many different scenarios could take place to change the equation. One of my fears is the probability that President Obama's campaign team might use a third-party candidate to split the GOP ticket. I believe if Mitt Romney wins the 2012 Republican nomination, then I think it's very probable there will be a third-party candidate running for president next year. I believe he will give voice to conservative values to. I believe he will be placed there for the purpose to ensure President Obama's re-election chances next year. Numerous things can happen between now and next year to change the equation. Those who have been predicting that President Obama will be a one-termer, such as media pundit Rush Limbaugh, political figures Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, etc., better not become too self-confident. Anything can take place to throw the election in favor of President Obama. If that happens, we're in trouble as a nation. However, something positive could come from that even if President Obama is re-elected as president next year. We as Americans need to learn that the answer to America's problems doesn't stem from the president of the United States. I don't believe there's any potential presidential candidate that can set America on the right track. America's hope doesn't lie in a politician. America's only hope is the Lord. We need to look to the Lord instead of looking to the elected elite in Washington to straighten out America's problems. We may need to get to this point so we can realize that God alone is sovereign and only He can solve our problems. America has problems that only God can solve--not politicians from Washington.
In an article from Newsmax University of Virginia Political Science Professor and analyst Larry Sabato made the statement this past Monday October 17, 2011 that if the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama would not only lose, but he would lose badly. I do wholeheartedly concur with that statement--at the moment! Sabato, one of the most quoted "college professors in the land" was giving an assessment based on all the latest data: economic, political, polling, and everything. Given the shape of the economy at this particular moment, I do agree that President Obama would lose right now barring there's no third party candidate running and giving voice to conservative values. Sabato said he would wait until July or August of next year to determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. That's a good idea because things are likely to change. Within the last few months, the president's approval rating has dropped steadily. His approval in handling the economy has received very low ratings. President Obama's poll numbers have been dropping at least since the debt ceiling debate and vote back in August. President Obama's poll numbers have slipped since.
Sabato was giving a state-by-state breakdown to Newsmax concerning how the 2012 presidential election will fare next year. Sabato said that the two swing states that Obama carried in 2008 he could possibly lose in 2012. The two states he mentioned are Indiana and North Carolina. Sabato said Indiana is gone regardless the outcome of the election. He said Florida would be a tough state for Obama to win, esp. if Senator Marco Rubio was to be on the GOP vice presidential ticket. President Obama carried Florida in 2008. Sabato says that Virginia could be an early indication on how well Obama will fare on election night next year.
I concur with Larry Sabato's assessment on President Obama. With that being said, we must take Sabato's prediction in context. There are three key words we must pay attention to: if held today. If the election were held today, President Obama would lose badly. Consequently, given the fact we live in a polarized country and given the fact that some Americans tend to be very fickle, you can't make the false assumption that President Obama is going to be a one-term president. If this was 2012 and President Obama's poll numbers were this low, then I would say his chances of winning are very improbable. However, many different scenarios could take place to change the equation. One of my fears is the probability that President Obama's campaign team might use a third-party candidate to split the GOP ticket. I believe if Mitt Romney wins the 2012 Republican nomination, then I think it's very probable there will be a third-party candidate running for president next year. I believe he will give voice to conservative values to. I believe he will be placed there for the purpose to ensure President Obama's re-election chances next year. Numerous things can happen between now and next year to change the equation. Those who have been predicting that President Obama will be a one-termer, such as media pundit Rush Limbaugh, political figures Michelle Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, etc., better not become too self-confident. Anything can take place to throw the election in favor of President Obama. If that happens, we're in trouble as a nation. However, something positive could come from that even if President Obama is re-elected as president next year. We as Americans need to learn that the answer to America's problems doesn't stem from the president of the United States. I don't believe there's any potential presidential candidate that can set America on the right track. America's hope doesn't lie in a politician. America's only hope is the Lord. We need to look to the Lord instead of looking to the elected elite in Washington to straighten out America's problems. We may need to get to this point so we can realize that God alone is sovereign and only He can solve our problems. America has problems that only God can solve--not politicians from Washington.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Obama Administration Asked Romneycare Advisers for Obamacare Advice
Obama Administration Asked Romneycare Advisers for Obamacare Advice - By Katrina Trinko - The Primary Event - National Review Online
For those in the GOP that believe that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney would be a strong formidable candidate against President Obama better think again. Those who believe Mitt Romney would be an alternative to Barack Obama for president next year need to read this article on National Review online. It's very stunning. If Mitt Romney is nominated as the Republican candidate to face off against President Obama next year I believe Romney will lose. What's different about Romney? What would Romney change as president? Would he act to repeal the Obama agenda from the last four years? During the last several GOP debates, all the candidates have stated they would repeal Obamacare if they were elected president. The former Massachusetts governor stated he would repeal Obamacare if he were elected president. Romney says that Obamacare is unconstitutional and that it's something that shouldn't be implemented on a national level. I would like to ask Mr. Romney what steps would he take to ensure that Obamacare is repealed?
I would encourage everyone who is reading this post to click on the above link. It would make your hair curl. Both Romneycare and Obamacare are basically similar. The only difference is Romneycare was implemented on a state level and Obamacare was implemented on a national level. Just as Obamacare requires all U.S. citizens to purchase health care insurance, so did Romneycare in Massachusetts. The Obama administration asked advisers who helped draft Romneycare on specifics when drafting the federal version of Obamacare. It's difficult for me to believe that Romney would roll back Obamacare when he pushed for the same version in state form when he was governor of Massachusetts. I just don't trust Mitt Romney. I guarantee you he won't use his influence and power to encourage Congressman to defund and repeal all of President Obama's socialist programs. There's not much difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama other than the fact that Mitt Romney has a wealth of experience in operating a business. How beneficial is it to have on your resume that you know how to operate a business when you allow politics to trump common business sense? It isn't. With Romney, politics trumps common business sense. Otherwise, Romneycare wouldn't have passed the Massachusetts state legislature in 2006. Mitt Romney is just one more Establishment Republican who will lose to President Obama if he's the GOP nominee in 2012.
For those in the GOP that believe that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney would be a strong formidable candidate against President Obama better think again. Those who believe Mitt Romney would be an alternative to Barack Obama for president next year need to read this article on National Review online. It's very stunning. If Mitt Romney is nominated as the Republican candidate to face off against President Obama next year I believe Romney will lose. What's different about Romney? What would Romney change as president? Would he act to repeal the Obama agenda from the last four years? During the last several GOP debates, all the candidates have stated they would repeal Obamacare if they were elected president. The former Massachusetts governor stated he would repeal Obamacare if he were elected president. Romney says that Obamacare is unconstitutional and that it's something that shouldn't be implemented on a national level. I would like to ask Mr. Romney what steps would he take to ensure that Obamacare is repealed?
I would encourage everyone who is reading this post to click on the above link. It would make your hair curl. Both Romneycare and Obamacare are basically similar. The only difference is Romneycare was implemented on a state level and Obamacare was implemented on a national level. Just as Obamacare requires all U.S. citizens to purchase health care insurance, so did Romneycare in Massachusetts. The Obama administration asked advisers who helped draft Romneycare on specifics when drafting the federal version of Obamacare. It's difficult for me to believe that Romney would roll back Obamacare when he pushed for the same version in state form when he was governor of Massachusetts. I just don't trust Mitt Romney. I guarantee you he won't use his influence and power to encourage Congressman to defund and repeal all of President Obama's socialist programs. There's not much difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama other than the fact that Mitt Romney has a wealth of experience in operating a business. How beneficial is it to have on your resume that you know how to operate a business when you allow politics to trump common business sense? It isn't. With Romney, politics trumps common business sense. Otherwise, Romneycare wouldn't have passed the Massachusetts state legislature in 2006. Mitt Romney is just one more Establishment Republican who will lose to President Obama if he's the GOP nominee in 2012.
Monday, October 17, 2011
GOP Candidate Herman Cain Squeaks Ahead Of Obama In New General Election Poll
Cain Squeaks Ahead Of Obama In New General Election Poll Fox News
GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain AP
According to Rasmussen Reports, GOP presidential candidate and former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain is ahead of President Barack Obama in a hypothetical general election contest. He's ahead of President Obama 43% - 41%. This poll is within the margin of error. However, Cain is the only GOP candidate who has any lead over Obama in head-to-head polls conducted by Rasmussen the past several weeks. What's interesting about Rasmussen is that this poll is very accurate during the election season. However, I must warn everybody that the 2012 general election is more than a year away and anything could change between now and next year. This poll is just a hypothetical poll. It just reflects the mood of those that were sampled in this poll. You can't guage by this poll who will be the GOP nominee next year nor who will win the presidential election. It's not unusual to have prospective GOP candidates bouncing back and fourth on the number one spot. It wasn't too many weeks ago that Texas Governor Rick Perry led atop the polls. Even though Cain's numbers may be rising doesn't mean it's a trend.
The election process is rigged when it comes to the presidential election. Whomever the forces of Nimrod decide to be the next nominee will receive the nomination. They'll make sure that the election is slanted towards favoring the Establishment candidate. The safest candidate for the globalists is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. The agenda will continue moving forward under Romney. I guarantee you he'll keep Obamacare in place. He pushed for a state nationalized health care in Massachustts. How am I to believe that he'll repeal Obamacare if elected president? He won't. Romney will not stop the globalists' push towards the new world order because Romney plays a part in that agenda. I don't believe Cain will remain atop the polls in the GOP for that long. I don't believe Cain is what the forces of Nimrod desire to be nominated next year.
GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain APAccording to Rasmussen Reports, GOP presidential candidate and former CEO of Godfather's Pizza Herman Cain is ahead of President Barack Obama in a hypothetical general election contest. He's ahead of President Obama 43% - 41%. This poll is within the margin of error. However, Cain is the only GOP candidate who has any lead over Obama in head-to-head polls conducted by Rasmussen the past several weeks. What's interesting about Rasmussen is that this poll is very accurate during the election season. However, I must warn everybody that the 2012 general election is more than a year away and anything could change between now and next year. This poll is just a hypothetical poll. It just reflects the mood of those that were sampled in this poll. You can't guage by this poll who will be the GOP nominee next year nor who will win the presidential election. It's not unusual to have prospective GOP candidates bouncing back and fourth on the number one spot. It wasn't too many weeks ago that Texas Governor Rick Perry led atop the polls. Even though Cain's numbers may be rising doesn't mean it's a trend.
The election process is rigged when it comes to the presidential election. Whomever the forces of Nimrod decide to be the next nominee will receive the nomination. They'll make sure that the election is slanted towards favoring the Establishment candidate. The safest candidate for the globalists is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. The agenda will continue moving forward under Romney. I guarantee you he'll keep Obamacare in place. He pushed for a state nationalized health care in Massachustts. How am I to believe that he'll repeal Obamacare if elected president? He won't. Romney will not stop the globalists' push towards the new world order because Romney plays a part in that agenda. I don't believe Cain will remain atop the polls in the GOP for that long. I don't believe Cain is what the forces of Nimrod desire to be nominated next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)