An Afghan immigrant named Najibullah Zazi who received explosives training from Al-Qaeda was arrested approximately a couple of weekends ago in Denver and was charged along with his father and a New York City imam with lying to investigators. It's alleged that Zazi, who's 24 years old, was traveling from one beauty supply store to another, purchasing large quantities of hydrogen peroxide and nail polish remover to build homemade bombs. He was a shuttle driver at a Denver airport. He's been indicted in New York on charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. There were bomb-making instructions found on his computer's hard drive and it's alleged that Zazi used a hotel room in Colorado to try to cook up explosives a few weeks before his trip to New York.
It's not clear to what extent is Zazi's ties to Al-Qaeda are. However, if the allegations are proven to be true, then this could be the first operating Al-Qaeda cell uncovered in the U.S. since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Prosecutors haven't been able to determine where the Zazi attacks would take place. Attorney General Eric Holder said, "We believe any imminent threat arising from this case has been disrupted." Authorities felt last week that Zazi and others might have been planning to detonate bombs on New York trains. Warnings went out to transit systems, stadiums, and hotels nationwide.
Authorities stated that Zazi, a legal resident that immigrated to the U.S. in 1999, began plotting as early as August 2008, to "use one or more weapons of mass destruction." That was when he and others traveled from Newark, N.J. to Pakistan to receive explosives training. Zazi moved to the Denver area within days of returning from Pakistan. He used a computer to research homemade bomb ingredients and to locate beauty supply stores to purchase the ingredients. A law enforcement official said authorities had been so worried about Zazi--and his September 10 trip to New York City which coincided with President Obama's that they considered arresting him as soon as he reached New York City. Zazi left a Denver court last Thursday with no comments and will soon be transferred to New York.
During the summer, Zazi and three unidentified associates bought "unusually large quantities" of hydrogen peroxide and acetone--a flammable solvent in nail polish remover, from beauty supply stores in the Denver area. A second law enforcement official said associates of Zazi's visited Colorado from New York to help him purchase the chemicals with stolen credit cards.
When reading about this case, one knows it was the FBI that helped uncover this potential terrorist cell in America. It was the FBI who helped bring this case to light. The question that I would like to pose is--where's the Department of Homeland Security? The Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002 to aid in counterrorism efforts. Janet Napolitano is too busy worried about "right wing" extremists instead of being concerned about Muslim extremists from the Middle East that could set off nuclear bombs in our country. The Department of Homeland Security is a joke. Here was a possible Al-Qaeda cell operating in this country for the past year and The Department of Homeland Security is nowhere to be found. It's another bureaucracy that was created by the Bush administration that is nothing but a drain on the American taxpayers. We have more layers of government, but we don't have a safer America because of it. It's too politically correct. It overlooks Islamic extremists but wants to go after Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage, to name a few. Rush Limbaugh and his kind aren't going to blow up America. But these Islamic extremists will. Also, what about the National Intelligence Director, Mike McConnell. That position is over the CIA and the purpose of that position is to help with intelligence matters. How has the position of National Intelligence Director helped in keeping America safe? That position and the Department of Homeland Security are a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars if they won't search for the true terrorists.
I'm thankful the FBI was on this case. I'm thankful they took the time to uncover this case last week. There's a great probability we would've had another major terrorist attack somewhere in the U.S. if the FBI wasn't onto the case and helped uncover it last week. The Zazi case shows we need to tighten security around our borders. I agree with talk show host Jim Sumpter the United States needs to build a border fence. Janet Napolitano and Mike McConnell need to be fired and replaced with competent people that are patriotic and have enough sense and backbone to know who are America's real enemies. We can't afford to appease the enemy. We must recognize who are enemies are and bring them to justice.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Facebook Poll Asking Whether President Obama Should be Assassinated Removed
The United States Secret Service is investigating Facebook, which is a global social networking site in which users can socialize with their friends, because there was a third party poll which was developed which had inappropriate content on it. There was a poll which posed the question "Should Barack Obama be killed?" The United States Secret Service sent an email to Barry Schnitt, the Facebook spokesman asking for the poll to be removed. Schnitt told CNN that some vigilant users reported it to him and he had it removed. Some of the responses to the poll were, "yes", "maybe, if he cuts my healthcare", and "no". Schnitt said the poll appeared to have been posted over the weekend. Schnitt says the content was removed and they're going to monitor the situation and try to be more cautious in what's posted on Facebook.
Facebook allows third party users to create contents such as polls and quizzes to be made available to the users. The users can determine whether they want to make the content available to all the Facebook public or just make it private to show only to a select group. It was a Facebook user that made the poll available to the public.
I for one didn't vote for Barack Obama nor am I a fan of Barack Obama. I vehemently disagree with most of his policies. I believe in publicly disagreeing with our elected leaders when they are wrong. I am thankful for the First Amendment right to free speech. I consider that sacred and something not to be taken for granted. I believe the First Amendment not only covers popular but unpopular speech as well. However, prudence and discretion should be used when it comes to the matter of free speech. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said around a century ago that you can't stretch free speech to the point where you can hollar "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Even though Americans should express their views regardless of how unpopular they are, there must be boundaries to free speech. The Facebook user that crafted the poll asking whether Obama should be killed is very foolish to say the least. I believe he/she is a moron. There's no excuse to ask such a foolish question as that. You don't take the law in your own hands and assassinate the president of the United States. I don't care how evil and despicable a political leader may be. Our election process allows for us to vote for our leaders. In 2012 we'll have another presidential election. That's the time when Americans will have the privilege to vote out President Obama. That's the proper channel when it comes to removing our leaders from political office. The truth of the matter is, President Obama was elected by the American people rightly or wrongly. Assassinating the president won't solve anything.
Assassinating President Obama isn't going to stop the march toward socialism. That will continue onward with or without Obama. Removing Obama isn't going to solve all the problem. The plan to create a socialist America was crafted long before Obama was ever in the political arena--probably before he was born. Obama is just a figurehead for those that helped place him in office. It's the people that prop him up that are the problem. Who are these people? It's a group of elitists strung out in all kinds of places. People such as the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the Bildebergers, George Soros, and other groups nobody knows about. They're spread out everywhere across the globe. Our politicians are just puppets fulfilling these elitists new world order goals. Whether it's Bush '41, Bush '43, Clinton, or Obama, they're all marching to the same drumbeat. If Joe Biden was to become the new president, he will continue down the same path. If a Republican gets elected in 2012, he will take America down the same path. A Republican may not take us down the sewer as quickly, but he will surely take us down there. Bush '43 paved the way for an Obama presidency. Killing President Obama or even our Congressmen and Senators won't solve anything. They will be replaced with people with the same kind of mindset.
There's no excuse for users or third party developers on Facebook or any kind of social network presenting those types of polls. You can disagree vehemently with a president without taking the law in your own hands. Committing murder is against the Bible. You don't right a wrong with a wrong. Assassinating Obama isn't going to help matters any. It will give the Left fuel and ammunition to say that the reason why he was assassinated was because of racism. If he was assassinated, that's what the Left would be saying. They would be saying it's because America's still a racist country. It's also a federal crime to assassinate the president. We must respect the office of the president regardless of how wrong Obama may be. God says in his word that "Vengeance is mine."
Facebook allows third party users to create contents such as polls and quizzes to be made available to the users. The users can determine whether they want to make the content available to all the Facebook public or just make it private to show only to a select group. It was a Facebook user that made the poll available to the public.
I for one didn't vote for Barack Obama nor am I a fan of Barack Obama. I vehemently disagree with most of his policies. I believe in publicly disagreeing with our elected leaders when they are wrong. I am thankful for the First Amendment right to free speech. I consider that sacred and something not to be taken for granted. I believe the First Amendment not only covers popular but unpopular speech as well. However, prudence and discretion should be used when it comes to the matter of free speech. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said around a century ago that you can't stretch free speech to the point where you can hollar "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Even though Americans should express their views regardless of how unpopular they are, there must be boundaries to free speech. The Facebook user that crafted the poll asking whether Obama should be killed is very foolish to say the least. I believe he/she is a moron. There's no excuse to ask such a foolish question as that. You don't take the law in your own hands and assassinate the president of the United States. I don't care how evil and despicable a political leader may be. Our election process allows for us to vote for our leaders. In 2012 we'll have another presidential election. That's the time when Americans will have the privilege to vote out President Obama. That's the proper channel when it comes to removing our leaders from political office. The truth of the matter is, President Obama was elected by the American people rightly or wrongly. Assassinating the president won't solve anything.
Assassinating President Obama isn't going to stop the march toward socialism. That will continue onward with or without Obama. Removing Obama isn't going to solve all the problem. The plan to create a socialist America was crafted long before Obama was ever in the political arena--probably before he was born. Obama is just a figurehead for those that helped place him in office. It's the people that prop him up that are the problem. Who are these people? It's a group of elitists strung out in all kinds of places. People such as the Federal Reserve, the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, the Bildebergers, George Soros, and other groups nobody knows about. They're spread out everywhere across the globe. Our politicians are just puppets fulfilling these elitists new world order goals. Whether it's Bush '41, Bush '43, Clinton, or Obama, they're all marching to the same drumbeat. If Joe Biden was to become the new president, he will continue down the same path. If a Republican gets elected in 2012, he will take America down the same path. A Republican may not take us down the sewer as quickly, but he will surely take us down there. Bush '43 paved the way for an Obama presidency. Killing President Obama or even our Congressmen and Senators won't solve anything. They will be replaced with people with the same kind of mindset.
There's no excuse for users or third party developers on Facebook or any kind of social network presenting those types of polls. You can disagree vehemently with a president without taking the law in your own hands. Committing murder is against the Bible. You don't right a wrong with a wrong. Assassinating Obama isn't going to help matters any. It will give the Left fuel and ammunition to say that the reason why he was assassinated was because of racism. If he was assassinated, that's what the Left would be saying. They would be saying it's because America's still a racist country. It's also a federal crime to assassinate the president. We must respect the office of the president regardless of how wrong Obama may be. God says in his word that "Vengeance is mine."
Monday, September 28, 2009
William Safire, Political Columnist and Pulitzer Prize Winner Dies at 79
William Safire, a political columnist, a Pulitzer Prize winner and the Oracle of Language, died Sunday at age 79 of pancreatic cancer in a hospice at Rockville, Maryland. He was born on December 17, 1929 in New York City. He was the youngest of three sons of Oliver C. and Ida Panish Safire. He graduated from Bronx High School of science and attended Syracuse University. He quit in his second year in 1949 to take a job with Tex McCrary, columnist from New York Herald Tribune, who hosted radio and televison shows. Safire was correspondent for WNBC-TV in Europe and the Middle East. He jumped into politics in 1952 by organizing an Eisenhower-for-President rally at Madison Square Garden. He was in the U.S. Army from 1952-54. Safire started a public relations firm in 1961. He sold that firm in 1968 to become a special assistant to President Richard Nixon. He joined the White House speechwriting team that included such men as Patrick J. Buchanan and Raymond K. Price Jr. In 1973, he became a columnist for the New York Times.
Safire wrote novels and books on politics and a Malaprops treasury of articles on language. According to the New York Times, he had his own unambiguous wit and wisdom on one hand and on the other hand, the blubber of fools he called "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "hopeless hysterical hypochondriacs of history." He was a master of language. He wrote four novels such as "Full Disclosure" (Doubleday, 1977). It was a bestseller about successor issues after a president is blinded in an assassination attempt. He wrote another one entitled, "The New Language of Politics" (Random House 1968), "Before the Fall" (Doubleday, 1975). It was a memoir of his White House Years under then President Richard Nixon. From 1973-2005 he wrote a twice-weekly "Essay" for the Op-Ed page of the Times, a forceful, conservative voice. He conduced much of his own reporting, called people liars in print. His last O-Ed column was "Never Retire." Safire was bold and succinct in the comments he made. He won a 1978 Pulitzer Price for commentary. He spent 32 years tenaciously attacking and defending foreign and domestic policies, and the foibles of seven administrations. He incurred both enmity and admiration.
Safire was also known for setting up a "kitchen debate" in Moscow between Nixon and Kruschev debating the subjects of capitalism vs. communism. Safire had his picture taken with both of them after the debate. Mr. Safire also won a Pulitzer Prize for columns accusing former President Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance of shady dealings. Lance resigned but was later acquitted in court. Even though he voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, Safire became a strong critic of the Clinton administration. He called Hillary a "congenital liar", which upset Hillary for the "sake of her mother".
Safire was considered a "libertarian conservative". He supposedly believed in individual freedom but limited government. He opposed the USA Patriot Act that was passed following the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. He stated the Patriot Act infringed upon America's civil liberties. He also wasn't supportive of Bush's treatment of prisoners. He was very supportive of the Iraq War in 2003 to oust Sadamm Hussein. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W. Bush in 2006. He was a member of the board that awards the Pulitzer Prizes. Finally, in his later years he was a member of the Dana Foundation which engaged in research in neuroscience, immunology and brain disorders.
Safire wrote novels and books on politics and a Malaprops treasury of articles on language. According to the New York Times, he had his own unambiguous wit and wisdom on one hand and on the other hand, the blubber of fools he called "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "hopeless hysterical hypochondriacs of history." He was a master of language. He wrote four novels such as "Full Disclosure" (Doubleday, 1977). It was a bestseller about successor issues after a president is blinded in an assassination attempt. He wrote another one entitled, "The New Language of Politics" (Random House 1968), "Before the Fall" (Doubleday, 1975). It was a memoir of his White House Years under then President Richard Nixon. From 1973-2005 he wrote a twice-weekly "Essay" for the Op-Ed page of the Times, a forceful, conservative voice. He conduced much of his own reporting, called people liars in print. His last O-Ed column was "Never Retire." Safire was bold and succinct in the comments he made. He won a 1978 Pulitzer Price for commentary. He spent 32 years tenaciously attacking and defending foreign and domestic policies, and the foibles of seven administrations. He incurred both enmity and admiration.
Safire was also known for setting up a "kitchen debate" in Moscow between Nixon and Kruschev debating the subjects of capitalism vs. communism. Safire had his picture taken with both of them after the debate. Mr. Safire also won a Pulitzer Prize for columns accusing former President Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance of shady dealings. Lance resigned but was later acquitted in court. Even though he voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, Safire became a strong critic of the Clinton administration. He called Hillary a "congenital liar", which upset Hillary for the "sake of her mother".
Safire was considered a "libertarian conservative". He supposedly believed in individual freedom but limited government. He opposed the USA Patriot Act that was passed following the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. He stated the Patriot Act infringed upon America's civil liberties. He also wasn't supportive of Bush's treatment of prisoners. He was very supportive of the Iraq War in 2003 to oust Sadamm Hussein. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W. Bush in 2006. He was a member of the board that awards the Pulitzer Prizes. Finally, in his later years he was a member of the Dana Foundation which engaged in research in neuroscience, immunology and brain disorders.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
It's Time to Take Action Against Iran's Nuclear Facilities
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a message by telephone over the weekend to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress that "Now is the time to halt the Iranian nuclear program." Netanyahu followed that with "If not now, then when?" Today Iran test fired short-range missiles. This is just a few days before Iran is to meet with Western leaders over concerns of Iran's recently discovered nuclear facility in Geneva, Switzerland. On Friday President Obama revealed at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh of a clandestine nuclear facility that Iran has. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the recently discovered nuclear plant was built for peaceful purposes such as making electricity. However, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Saturday that the newly exposed nuclear facility in Iran was built for military purposes and it was proof the Islamic Republic is seeking atomic weapons.
Haartez.com reported that the Israeli leaders have repeatedly expressed alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitions and refused to rule out pre-emptive military action to stop Iran from developing an atomic weapon. Who can blame Israel? I find it very frustrating that former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezezinski under Jimmy Carter instructed the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli jets if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. That shows whose side Brezezinski is on. The Iranian threat is more extensive than just Israel and the Middle East. This also involves the West. It also involves the United States whom the Islamic world considers the "Great Satan." You have a dictator in Iran whom you can't trust. With Iran firing missiles today Ahmadinejad has shown that he's determined to defy the sanctions that's been placed upon him. He doesn't fear test-firing missiles because he knows that the U.S. or the U.N. isn't going to stop him.
President Obama said that Iran must come clean regarding it's nuclear facilities or it could face sanctions that could "bite". Obama needs to do more than just use rhetoric. He needs to match his rhetoric with action. It's time the U.S. steps up to the plate and use airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilites and destroy them now before Ahmadinejad becomes more powerful than what he is now. I don't believe we should send ground troops to Iran. But I believe the U.S. should use air power to wipe out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities. I also believe that Ahmadinejad needs to be disposed as well. The quicker the "Iranian Hitler" can be taken out the better. If Ahmadinejad is left to his own devices, we could have a nuclear "World War III" on our hands. We have a weak president and weak leadership in Congress who don't want to stand against the threat of tyranny. You can't appease a corrupt ruler like Ahmadinejad and not suffer the consequences. Former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler and anyone who's read history knows what kind of atrocities Adolf Hitler committed. Ahmadinejad will commit the same atrocities if we don't destroy Iran's nuclear potential and take him out now. He is anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. We can't afford to wait any longer to dispose of him.
The United States needs to demand that any U.S. corporation that's involved in any type of trade deals with Iran to be ceased immediately. I believe there should be penalities placed on U.S. corporations if they continue conducting business with Iran. Our government as well as our corporations need to be on the same page when it comes to halting Iran's nuclear program. We don't want to help Iran economically as long as Ahmadinejad is in power. Any money that Iran receives will more than likely go towards building nuclear weapons. We must stop Iran now or we will face a nuclear showdown!
Haartez.com reported that the Israeli leaders have repeatedly expressed alarm over Iran's nuclear ambitions and refused to rule out pre-emptive military action to stop Iran from developing an atomic weapon. Who can blame Israel? I find it very frustrating that former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezezinski under Jimmy Carter instructed the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli jets if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. That shows whose side Brezezinski is on. The Iranian threat is more extensive than just Israel and the Middle East. This also involves the West. It also involves the United States whom the Islamic world considers the "Great Satan." You have a dictator in Iran whom you can't trust. With Iran firing missiles today Ahmadinejad has shown that he's determined to defy the sanctions that's been placed upon him. He doesn't fear test-firing missiles because he knows that the U.S. or the U.N. isn't going to stop him.
President Obama said that Iran must come clean regarding it's nuclear facilities or it could face sanctions that could "bite". Obama needs to do more than just use rhetoric. He needs to match his rhetoric with action. It's time the U.S. steps up to the plate and use airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilites and destroy them now before Ahmadinejad becomes more powerful than what he is now. I don't believe we should send ground troops to Iran. But I believe the U.S. should use air power to wipe out all of Iran's nuclear capabilities. I also believe that Ahmadinejad needs to be disposed as well. The quicker the "Iranian Hitler" can be taken out the better. If Ahmadinejad is left to his own devices, we could have a nuclear "World War III" on our hands. We have a weak president and weak leadership in Congress who don't want to stand against the threat of tyranny. You can't appease a corrupt ruler like Ahmadinejad and not suffer the consequences. Former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler and anyone who's read history knows what kind of atrocities Adolf Hitler committed. Ahmadinejad will commit the same atrocities if we don't destroy Iran's nuclear potential and take him out now. He is anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. We can't afford to wait any longer to dispose of him.
The United States needs to demand that any U.S. corporation that's involved in any type of trade deals with Iran to be ceased immediately. I believe there should be penalities placed on U.S. corporations if they continue conducting business with Iran. Our government as well as our corporations need to be on the same page when it comes to halting Iran's nuclear program. We don't want to help Iran economically as long as Ahmadinejad is in power. Any money that Iran receives will more than likely go towards building nuclear weapons. We must stop Iran now or we will face a nuclear showdown!
Friday, September 25, 2009
YouTube - (No background music) School kids taught to praise Obama
YouTube - (No background music) School kids taught to praise Obama
School children at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, New Jersey have been taught both to chant President Obama's names as well as sing praises honoring the president. They were singing the song, "Mr. President, We Honor You Today" to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic". I have a link from YouTube I've posted to this blog in which students are lined in front of the stage and an adult is teaching the chant. "World Net Daily" showed the YouTube clip where the students were chanting Obama's name.
I wonder what would happen if the students decided to sing a song praising the accomplishments of former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. The ACLU would probably be upset. I guarantee you the NEA would be upset over it because the NEA supports Democrats for president. God forbid if those students decided to sing an array of hymns praising Jesus. The ACLU would sue the school district for the school being in violation of the separation of church and state. It's "unconstitutional" to give honor and praise to our Creator but we can sing praises in honor of a president who dishonors Biblical values? He's probably a closet Muslim.
We should respect our leaders. We definitely should pray for them. There's no question that President Obama has questionable character just like former President Bill Clinton did. However, this is not Rome where we worship the emperor. This also isn't Nazi Germany where the youth were taught to revere Adolf Hitler. From reading excerpts of the song and the chant, it seems to borderline on praise to Obama. Even though we are to honor the office of the President, we aren't to worship the president. We have students in our schools being taught to sing chants to Obama like the youth in Germany were taught to revere Hitler. The God of scripture is the only one we're to worship and adore. The Ten Commandments say that there's only one God in heaven and we're to worship HIM ALONE! This sounds like Hitlerian Germany.
President Obama is worshipped and revered by the media. He's loved by the Muslim world. I wouldn't be surpised if he's a Muslim. He's even been called the "Messiah". Now some schools are teaching students to offer praises to Obama. God help us!
School children at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, New Jersey have been taught both to chant President Obama's names as well as sing praises honoring the president. They were singing the song, "Mr. President, We Honor You Today" to the tune of "Battle Hymn of the Republic". I have a link from YouTube I've posted to this blog in which students are lined in front of the stage and an adult is teaching the chant. "World Net Daily" showed the YouTube clip where the students were chanting Obama's name.
I wonder what would happen if the students decided to sing a song praising the accomplishments of former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. The ACLU would probably be upset. I guarantee you the NEA would be upset over it because the NEA supports Democrats for president. God forbid if those students decided to sing an array of hymns praising Jesus. The ACLU would sue the school district for the school being in violation of the separation of church and state. It's "unconstitutional" to give honor and praise to our Creator but we can sing praises in honor of a president who dishonors Biblical values? He's probably a closet Muslim.
We should respect our leaders. We definitely should pray for them. There's no question that President Obama has questionable character just like former President Bill Clinton did. However, this is not Rome where we worship the emperor. This also isn't Nazi Germany where the youth were taught to revere Adolf Hitler. From reading excerpts of the song and the chant, it seems to borderline on praise to Obama. Even though we are to honor the office of the President, we aren't to worship the president. We have students in our schools being taught to sing chants to Obama like the youth in Germany were taught to revere Hitler. The God of scripture is the only one we're to worship and adore. The Ten Commandments say that there's only one God in heaven and we're to worship HIM ALONE! This sounds like Hitlerian Germany.
President Obama is worshipped and revered by the media. He's loved by the Muslim world. I wouldn't be surpised if he's a Muslim. He's even been called the "Messiah". Now some schools are teaching students to offer praises to Obama. God help us!
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A Global Response to Global Challenges
President Barack Obama addressed the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday. He said in his address to the U.N. that he has ushered in a "new era of engagement with the world." He told world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly that "cooperation is a two-way street." He said that America wasn't going to tackle the world's problems alone. President Obama was promoting globalism to solve the world's problems. Obama was mentioning his policies that were popular abroad such as a ban on torture, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and climate change (or global warming). Obama decided last week also to scrap the long-range missile defense shield system planned to be put in place in Poland and Czechslovakia. Other world leaders that spoke there were Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Following Obama's speech Gadhafi criticized the U.N. Security Council as being dominated by powerful nations and he ripped a copy of the U.N. charter. Ahmadinejad gave a fiery speech criticizing the United States.
There was an emphasis on globalism or global governance at the U.N. Security Council. President Obama as well as the U.N. leadership don't believe in the sovereignty of nations. They believe in the sovereignty of the U.N. The United Nations has been a joke from its inception since 1945. It hasn't done anything to stop stop communism around the world or Islamic terrorism. This is all part and parcel of the eventual new world order. I predicted several years ago that the United Nations would be the World Congress whenever the antichrist was revealed and the New World Order began. We have the U.N. trying to assert itself as being preeminent over all the world's countries.
I am a firm believer in enlisting allies when it comes to tackling rogue dictatorships or the nuclear threat of Iran and North Korea if possible. I believe the more allies one can enlist the better. However, I'm not a believer that you must have countries standing with you when it comes to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities or destroying Al-Qaeda around the world if there's no country that will stand with you. It's better to have allies, but sometimes we have to be the lone ranger out of necessity. There have been times in history when one country had to stand in the gap and confront evil around the world. The United States was the only country involved in dropping the atomic bomb in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. It wouldn't be popular with the nations that comprise the U.N. today. Just imagine what would've happened if President Truman hadn't been willing to drop the atomic bomb. World War II would've continued on for a least another year and millions more American troops would've been killed. Sometimes a country has to be the long ranger and lead the way. I'd rather have one country leading the way than have all of civilization be destroyed by nuclear weapons. We can't afford to wait for consent from the United Nations to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities. We're talking about the survival of our world. Sometimes a country has to be willing to strike at a moment's notice. I am opposed in requiring the United States to seek approval from the rest of the world to destroy regimes and potentates that are harmful to the survival of civilization.
I had a great admiration for former President Reagan when it came to dealing with dictators and communism. Even though he made his share of mistakes on different fronts, Reagan knew how evil communism was. He was determined to stop the spread of communism even if it meant America having to go at it alone. I remember the Libya bombing of 1986. Back on April 15, 1986, Reagan ordered the bombing against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya. Reagan had no use for Moammar Gadhafi. They were supportive of Iran during the 80's when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. During the bombing of Libya 45 Libyan military and government personnel died during that raid. The U.S. had intercepted the telex messages from Libya's East Berlin embassy. There was a bomb that exploded in a Berline discotheque which resulted in 63 American military personnel and the death of one servicemen. This convinced the U.S. that Libya was behind that bomb. After Reagan had Libya bombed, the U.S. had no more trouble from Libya for a long time. That didn't happen by Reagan being Mr. Nice Guy or him seeking approval from the U.N. He did what he felt was necessary. The spread of evil must be stopped whether it's one nation leading the way or a whole group of nation's banding together to stop evil.
The stage is being set for a worldwide communist dictatorship. Efforts have been made for the last few decades to destroy American sovereignty. America's leadership is inept. We have a pacifist in the White House. He's working towards transforming the United States into a communist country. Today the U.S. government is trying to usurp authority over all Americans. The government's trying to pass nationalized health care which will give the government greater control over its citizens. The Left has been trying for some time to push a global warming agenda on America. Obama's setting the stage for an eventual one world government. There's been talk for some time of eradicating the dollar and in it's place establish a world currency. Also, the U.N. agreed to stop the nuclear proliferation of weapons. They're trying to make America defenseless. America's rapidly losing her sovereignty. Global governance is the theme of the new world order.
There was an emphasis on globalism or global governance at the U.N. Security Council. President Obama as well as the U.N. leadership don't believe in the sovereignty of nations. They believe in the sovereignty of the U.N. The United Nations has been a joke from its inception since 1945. It hasn't done anything to stop stop communism around the world or Islamic terrorism. This is all part and parcel of the eventual new world order. I predicted several years ago that the United Nations would be the World Congress whenever the antichrist was revealed and the New World Order began. We have the U.N. trying to assert itself as being preeminent over all the world's countries.
I am a firm believer in enlisting allies when it comes to tackling rogue dictatorships or the nuclear threat of Iran and North Korea if possible. I believe the more allies one can enlist the better. However, I'm not a believer that you must have countries standing with you when it comes to destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities or destroying Al-Qaeda around the world if there's no country that will stand with you. It's better to have allies, but sometimes we have to be the lone ranger out of necessity. There have been times in history when one country had to stand in the gap and confront evil around the world. The United States was the only country involved in dropping the atomic bomb in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. It wouldn't be popular with the nations that comprise the U.N. today. Just imagine what would've happened if President Truman hadn't been willing to drop the atomic bomb. World War II would've continued on for a least another year and millions more American troops would've been killed. Sometimes a country has to be the long ranger and lead the way. I'd rather have one country leading the way than have all of civilization be destroyed by nuclear weapons. We can't afford to wait for consent from the United Nations to remove Iran's nuclear capabilities. We're talking about the survival of our world. Sometimes a country has to be willing to strike at a moment's notice. I am opposed in requiring the United States to seek approval from the rest of the world to destroy regimes and potentates that are harmful to the survival of civilization.
I had a great admiration for former President Reagan when it came to dealing with dictators and communism. Even though he made his share of mistakes on different fronts, Reagan knew how evil communism was. He was determined to stop the spread of communism even if it meant America having to go at it alone. I remember the Libya bombing of 1986. Back on April 15, 1986, Reagan ordered the bombing against Tripoli and Benghazi in Libya. Reagan had no use for Moammar Gadhafi. They were supportive of Iran during the 80's when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power. During the bombing of Libya 45 Libyan military and government personnel died during that raid. The U.S. had intercepted the telex messages from Libya's East Berlin embassy. There was a bomb that exploded in a Berline discotheque which resulted in 63 American military personnel and the death of one servicemen. This convinced the U.S. that Libya was behind that bomb. After Reagan had Libya bombed, the U.S. had no more trouble from Libya for a long time. That didn't happen by Reagan being Mr. Nice Guy or him seeking approval from the U.N. He did what he felt was necessary. The spread of evil must be stopped whether it's one nation leading the way or a whole group of nation's banding together to stop evil.
The stage is being set for a worldwide communist dictatorship. Efforts have been made for the last few decades to destroy American sovereignty. America's leadership is inept. We have a pacifist in the White House. He's working towards transforming the United States into a communist country. Today the U.S. government is trying to usurp authority over all Americans. The government's trying to pass nationalized health care which will give the government greater control over its citizens. The Left has been trying for some time to push a global warming agenda on America. Obama's setting the stage for an eventual one world government. There's been talk for some time of eradicating the dollar and in it's place establish a world currency. Also, the U.N. agreed to stop the nuclear proliferation of weapons. They're trying to make America defenseless. America's rapidly losing her sovereignty. Global governance is the theme of the new world order.
Whose Side is Zbigniew Brezezinski on?
Zbigniew Brezezinski is an interesting character. Not only does he have a name that's difficult to spell and pronounce (he is Polish), but his loyalties in regards to America is difficult to ascertain. Brezezinski told the Daily Beast Website a few days ago that in case of an Israeli-Iranian confrontation that the U.S. military should shoot down any Israeli jets that are headed to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. I find that really disturbing. The former National Security Adviser under Jimmy Carter from 1977-81 had presided over a number of international crises such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 where the Shah of Iran was overthrown and the Ayatollah Khomeini came into power, the U.S. Embassy takeover in Iran, and the hostage crisis situation. Anyone that remembers that period of history knew it was a disturbing time for America because the Carter administration was inept and soft on Communism and couldn't solve any foreign problems.
Zbigniew Brezezinski was a disciple of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is a globalist when it comes to world affairs. Brezezinski is a globalist as well. Carter awarded him with the post of National Security Adviser when Carter won the presidency in 1976. The Carter presidency was a time of havoc in this country. I find a lack of patriotism in Brezezinski. Whether or not Brezezinski is in favor of the Jewish state, he needs to recognize that Iran isn't only a threat to Israel--they're a threat to the West. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad possesses the Hilter mentality. He hates Israel and the Jews and he believes Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. What I find really disturbing in Brezezinski's statement is that he doesn't offer any plan to stop Ahmadinejad from building a nuclear bomb and using it on the West. President Obama isn't going to take out Ahmadinejad or the Iranian mullahs. I find it preposterous that Brezezinski would instruct the U.S. military to shoot down any Israeli jets to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. This is much broader than protecting the interests of the Israeli's. It's also about protecting the best interests of America.
World Net Daily founder Joseph Farah wrote an article on yesterday's website about Zbigniew Brezezinski. He was mentioning about the conference that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held on October 26, 2005. It was called, "A World Without Zionism." It was conducted in Tehran. Many Americans have already heard through the news that Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. According to Farah, Ahmadinejad also wants the U.S. to be destroyed as well. Israel is considered the "little Satan" to the Iranians, but the U.S. is the "Great Satan". They hate both Israel and the United States. Israel is a Jewish nation in which sprang the Messiah Jesus, the seed of David. The United States was a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles over 300 years ago. Anyone that knows Biblical history knows there's enmity between the Christians and the Jews, which stemmed from Ishmael and Isaac. The Muslims hate Christians. Naturally they will hate both Israel and the United States.
The United States has had for a number of decades traitors in high offices. We've had tratiors in the early part of the 20th century who were sympathetic to the communist cause in our government. We have those in our government today that are sympathetic to the Muslim world in the Middle East. I believe President Obama is emblamatic of that. I believe that also is true about Brezezinski. Brezezinski is opposed to anything that promotes the sovereignty of the United States. I think he believes in the sovereignty of the United Nations. You would think that he would be supportive of Israel destroying Iran's nuclear facilities knowing that Iran is a threat to the U.S. as well. He doesn't care. Iran could send Islamists posed as Mexicans crossing the U.S. Mexican border with suitcase nukes. There's different ways Iran could attack the U.S. Brezezinski is anti-Israel. Brezezinski believes the Jewish lobby forces America into a pro-Israel policy. He's a supporter of the Palestinians like his protege Jimmy Carter was. I believe Brezezinski is a traitor. When it comes to the interests of the U.S. as a country, Brezezinski could care less. I believe he would rather side with the Iranian mullahs anyday. As I've heard radio talk-show host Michael Savage say, "That's the disease of liberalism."
Zbigniew Brezezinski was a disciple of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who is a globalist when it comes to world affairs. Brezezinski is a globalist as well. Carter awarded him with the post of National Security Adviser when Carter won the presidency in 1976. The Carter presidency was a time of havoc in this country. I find a lack of patriotism in Brezezinski. Whether or not Brezezinski is in favor of the Jewish state, he needs to recognize that Iran isn't only a threat to Israel--they're a threat to the West. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad possesses the Hilter mentality. He hates Israel and the Jews and he believes Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. What I find really disturbing in Brezezinski's statement is that he doesn't offer any plan to stop Ahmadinejad from building a nuclear bomb and using it on the West. President Obama isn't going to take out Ahmadinejad or the Iranian mullahs. I find it preposterous that Brezezinski would instruct the U.S. military to shoot down any Israeli jets to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. This is much broader than protecting the interests of the Israeli's. It's also about protecting the best interests of America.
World Net Daily founder Joseph Farah wrote an article on yesterday's website about Zbigniew Brezezinski. He was mentioning about the conference that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held on October 26, 2005. It was called, "A World Without Zionism." It was conducted in Tehran. Many Americans have already heard through the news that Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. According to Farah, Ahmadinejad also wants the U.S. to be destroyed as well. Israel is considered the "little Satan" to the Iranians, but the U.S. is the "Great Satan". They hate both Israel and the United States. Israel is a Jewish nation in which sprang the Messiah Jesus, the seed of David. The United States was a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles over 300 years ago. Anyone that knows Biblical history knows there's enmity between the Christians and the Jews, which stemmed from Ishmael and Isaac. The Muslims hate Christians. Naturally they will hate both Israel and the United States.
The United States has had for a number of decades traitors in high offices. We've had tratiors in the early part of the 20th century who were sympathetic to the communist cause in our government. We have those in our government today that are sympathetic to the Muslim world in the Middle East. I believe President Obama is emblamatic of that. I believe that also is true about Brezezinski. Brezezinski is opposed to anything that promotes the sovereignty of the United States. I think he believes in the sovereignty of the United Nations. You would think that he would be supportive of Israel destroying Iran's nuclear facilities knowing that Iran is a threat to the U.S. as well. He doesn't care. Iran could send Islamists posed as Mexicans crossing the U.S. Mexican border with suitcase nukes. There's different ways Iran could attack the U.S. Brezezinski is anti-Israel. Brezezinski believes the Jewish lobby forces America into a pro-Israel policy. He's a supporter of the Palestinians like his protege Jimmy Carter was. I believe Brezezinski is a traitor. When it comes to the interests of the U.S. as a country, Brezezinski could care less. I believe he would rather side with the Iranian mullahs anyday. As I've heard radio talk-show host Michael Savage say, "That's the disease of liberalism."
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Science Czar John Holdren's Views on Abortion and Population Control
Science Czar John Holdren stated that abortion can save the planet. Holdren contended in a textbook that he co-authored that involuntary birth control measures, including forced sterilization may be necessary and morally acceptable under certain circumstances, according to World Net Daily. He even went as far to say that in times of emergency, compulsory abortion could be justified by the Constitution. Holdren co-authored a book with Paul R. and Anne Erlich entitled, Ecoscience; Population, Resources, Environment. In it he states that "compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternative may be much more horrifying." The authors of that textbook advocated abortion as an acceptable form of population control and proposes that the best survival strategy for the pregnant woman is to abort her baby. Holdren is another one of President Obama's radical czars that seeks to impose his set of radical beliefs when it comes to family planning and population control.
The concept of population control is not a new phenomenon. It was even practiced during Biblical days. Pharaoh, King of Egypt ordered all the firstborn male children slaughtered in Egypt. King Herod during the time of the Roman Empire had ordered all the firstborn male two and under to be slaughtered in Bethlehem. He was trying to kill Jesus. Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany ordered all the jews to be gassed. Some six million Jews were slaughtered during his regime in Germany. There have always been dictators that have sought to manipulate the population and eliminate those that they considered a misfit and unwanted. There have been authors such as Thomas Malthus in the nineteenth century that advocated population control. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, promoted an agenda of birth control and believed blacks, Jews, and other groups should be sterilized.
There was a time in American when we honored the values of the Bible and believed man was created in God's image and that human life was sacred from birth to death. Over the years the Christian consensus that had built America started fading and our society adopted the philosophy of secular humanism which states that man is his own god. We also accepted the notion of utilitarianism which believes man's worth is based on his usefulness to society. In the humanist worldview, man is only valuable based on his usefulness to society. Once he's old and is no longer able to physically care for himself, he's no longer useful to society and he deserves the right to die. Ever since the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade of 1973, millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered in their mother's womb. With many dual-career households in America today, a child has become a nuisance to many couples. Also due to the prevalence of fornication, many young unwed mothers have opted for abortion simply because they're not in a position themselves to provide the kind of care their infants need. We've become a hedonist society where mankind is only concerned about living for pleasure.
The textbook that both Holdren and Ehrlich authored discussed compulsory methods of population control such as forced abortion and sterilization. Holdren and Ehrlich advocated milder population control measures such as placing sterilants in drinking water to control the population. I remember reading one of the late Francis Schaeffer's books, How Then Should We Live? in which Schaeffer mentioned of a professor named Kermit Frantz, head of the Gynecology Department at the University of Kansas. Frantz advocated in October 1969 to place birth control in our drinking water. That just mirrors what Holdren would like to see accomplished. Both Holdren and Ehrlich advocated compulsory birth control methods be used when there's massive famine, political unrest, ecological collapses of various kinds, large-scale crop failures due to mass famine, severe resource shortages, epidemic diseases, and wars over diminishing resources. The authors stated that overpopulation enhances the probability any one of these dilemmas could occur.
Years ago there was a book authored by a Reformed Presbyterian named Rousas J. Rushdoony. It was entitled, The Myth of Overpopulation, in which he stated there was no such phenomena as "overpopulation". He said overpopulation was due to socialist governments. I happen to concur with that statement. The problem is with the governments in many of the Third World countries. They are empowered by authoritarian elites who seek to control their people. They seek to create a society in which only a certain group of people lives. Those that don't fit that criteria should be exterminated. That was Hitler's view. He wanted a pure Aryan race in Germany. He sought to kill the Jews and those that opposed his agenda. There are world dictators with the same mentality as Hitler. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is one such example. He hates the Jews and he believes Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.
Another problem with the theory of overpopulation is some countries such as India hold strange religious views when it comes to the consumption of certain types of food. Hinduism views the cow as sacred. Therefore the people there don't consume beef. The Muslims don't believe in consuming pork. In reverting back to the first point I made about socialist governments, they seek to control the economic factors of production in their country. They believe in a planned economy. They will dictate to the farmer what kind of crops and how much they are allowed to grow. It's not the government's place to control the factors of production when it comes to the marketplace. If the ordinary citizens of a given country have control over the market, then they will produce the kind of food they need to in order to survive. I believe the average person has enough sense on how much food needs to be grown. That's obvious when one considers the high rate of obesity in America. However, when government's in charge of the factors of production, then they'll shortchange their people. These dictators do so because they have an agenda. They desire for certain kinds and certain numbers of people to survive.
These communists that are in charge of population control don't view mankind as being created in the image of God. Holdren doesn't recognize that God has assigned value to mankind and that life is sacred. People like Holdren and Ehrlich view mankind as disposable and should be eliminated to control overpopulation. They refuse to take into account that God's in control and that God cares for man. The Lord's the only one that has the right to thin out the population. If the population was out of control, then the Lord would use whatever means was necessary to reduce the population. However, we have gods such as Holdren that want to dictate who should be born and when a person should die. How tragic! I don't deny that there's overpopulation in many of our major metropolitan areas. However, there's plenty of land in America in which people can move to and settle. In the last several years there have been scores of people leaving the major cities and moving to more of the rural areas. We need to populate some of these rural areas in America and start businesses there. We don't need to kill off people to save the planet or keep the population in check. THAT'S GOD'S DOMAIN--NOT MAN'S! The truth of the matter is people die every single day whether it be through old age, sickness, wars, pestilences, famine, and the list continues. There were large families during the Great Depression that were dirt poor, but they managed to make it. Why? God's in control. As long as there's a God in heaven, people can make it through tumultuous times. Elites such as John Holdren are a threat to this nation and we need to vote in heavy numbers in the 2010 election to vote out those politicians that voted for these communist czars such as Holdren!
The concept of population control is not a new phenomenon. It was even practiced during Biblical days. Pharaoh, King of Egypt ordered all the firstborn male children slaughtered in Egypt. King Herod during the time of the Roman Empire had ordered all the firstborn male two and under to be slaughtered in Bethlehem. He was trying to kill Jesus. Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany ordered all the jews to be gassed. Some six million Jews were slaughtered during his regime in Germany. There have always been dictators that have sought to manipulate the population and eliminate those that they considered a misfit and unwanted. There have been authors such as Thomas Malthus in the nineteenth century that advocated population control. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, promoted an agenda of birth control and believed blacks, Jews, and other groups should be sterilized.
There was a time in American when we honored the values of the Bible and believed man was created in God's image and that human life was sacred from birth to death. Over the years the Christian consensus that had built America started fading and our society adopted the philosophy of secular humanism which states that man is his own god. We also accepted the notion of utilitarianism which believes man's worth is based on his usefulness to society. In the humanist worldview, man is only valuable based on his usefulness to society. Once he's old and is no longer able to physically care for himself, he's no longer useful to society and he deserves the right to die. Ever since the Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade of 1973, millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered in their mother's womb. With many dual-career households in America today, a child has become a nuisance to many couples. Also due to the prevalence of fornication, many young unwed mothers have opted for abortion simply because they're not in a position themselves to provide the kind of care their infants need. We've become a hedonist society where mankind is only concerned about living for pleasure.
The textbook that both Holdren and Ehrlich authored discussed compulsory methods of population control such as forced abortion and sterilization. Holdren and Ehrlich advocated milder population control measures such as placing sterilants in drinking water to control the population. I remember reading one of the late Francis Schaeffer's books, How Then Should We Live? in which Schaeffer mentioned of a professor named Kermit Frantz, head of the Gynecology Department at the University of Kansas. Frantz advocated in October 1969 to place birth control in our drinking water. That just mirrors what Holdren would like to see accomplished. Both Holdren and Ehrlich advocated compulsory birth control methods be used when there's massive famine, political unrest, ecological collapses of various kinds, large-scale crop failures due to mass famine, severe resource shortages, epidemic diseases, and wars over diminishing resources. The authors stated that overpopulation enhances the probability any one of these dilemmas could occur.
Years ago there was a book authored by a Reformed Presbyterian named Rousas J. Rushdoony. It was entitled, The Myth of Overpopulation, in which he stated there was no such phenomena as "overpopulation". He said overpopulation was due to socialist governments. I happen to concur with that statement. The problem is with the governments in many of the Third World countries. They are empowered by authoritarian elites who seek to control their people. They seek to create a society in which only a certain group of people lives. Those that don't fit that criteria should be exterminated. That was Hitler's view. He wanted a pure Aryan race in Germany. He sought to kill the Jews and those that opposed his agenda. There are world dictators with the same mentality as Hitler. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is one such example. He hates the Jews and he believes Israel should be wiped off the face of the map.
Another problem with the theory of overpopulation is some countries such as India hold strange religious views when it comes to the consumption of certain types of food. Hinduism views the cow as sacred. Therefore the people there don't consume beef. The Muslims don't believe in consuming pork. In reverting back to the first point I made about socialist governments, they seek to control the economic factors of production in their country. They believe in a planned economy. They will dictate to the farmer what kind of crops and how much they are allowed to grow. It's not the government's place to control the factors of production when it comes to the marketplace. If the ordinary citizens of a given country have control over the market, then they will produce the kind of food they need to in order to survive. I believe the average person has enough sense on how much food needs to be grown. That's obvious when one considers the high rate of obesity in America. However, when government's in charge of the factors of production, then they'll shortchange their people. These dictators do so because they have an agenda. They desire for certain kinds and certain numbers of people to survive.
These communists that are in charge of population control don't view mankind as being created in the image of God. Holdren doesn't recognize that God has assigned value to mankind and that life is sacred. People like Holdren and Ehrlich view mankind as disposable and should be eliminated to control overpopulation. They refuse to take into account that God's in control and that God cares for man. The Lord's the only one that has the right to thin out the population. If the population was out of control, then the Lord would use whatever means was necessary to reduce the population. However, we have gods such as Holdren that want to dictate who should be born and when a person should die. How tragic! I don't deny that there's overpopulation in many of our major metropolitan areas. However, there's plenty of land in America in which people can move to and settle. In the last several years there have been scores of people leaving the major cities and moving to more of the rural areas. We need to populate some of these rural areas in America and start businesses there. We don't need to kill off people to save the planet or keep the population in check. THAT'S GOD'S DOMAIN--NOT MAN'S! The truth of the matter is people die every single day whether it be through old age, sickness, wars, pestilences, famine, and the list continues. There were large families during the Great Depression that were dirt poor, but they managed to make it. Why? God's in control. As long as there's a God in heaven, people can make it through tumultuous times. Elites such as John Holdren are a threat to this nation and we need to vote in heavy numbers in the 2010 election to vote out those politicians that voted for these communist czars such as Holdren!
Monday, September 21, 2009
A Fixed Heart
Psalms 57:7 says, "My heart is fixed, O God, my heart is fixed: I will sing and give praise." There's a song that the late Dottie Rambo wrote years ago entitled, "My Heart is Fixed." In order for a Christian to have a proper walk with God, it's a necessity to have a heart that is fixed and stable. I was reading the definition of "fix" in Webster's Dictionary. It says, "To fasten firmly. To set firmly. To direct (one's eyes) steadily at something." A couple other definitions are to establish definitely and to set in order. That's what we must do when it comes to our heart. It needs to be established definitely and set in order. When God saves us he changes us and give us a new heart. However, we have a responsibility to guard our hearts. We should be cautious in what we allow ourselves to think upon because it could enter into our hearts. We are to keep our hearts pure.
We should determine before God that we will keep our hearts fixed toward him. We need to allow God to have control over our lives. We need to allow our heart to ponder upon the things of God. One of the reasons why many saved people seem to be up and down in their walk with God is because of unstable, unfixed hearts. We allow the trials and tribulations of this life to affect us and our walk with God. However, the Psalmist declared that his heart is fixed and that he will sing and give praise. He was determined to allow nothing to interfere with his love and devotion toward God. Those that have a fixed heart won't be shaken when the Devil and all the forces of hell try to create havoc in that person's life. If we are going to worship and serve the Lord, we need to have a heart that is established and set in order. Our heart must be fixed upon truth. When our heart is fixed, we will worship and praise him. We can worship and praise him wholeheartedly when we won't allow anything in this world to interfere with our affection toward him.
What are some things our hearts should be fixed upon? First of all it should be fixed upon the truth, God's word. II Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." We are to recognize God's word is truth and we should fix our hearts upon the Word of God, which is infallible and inerrant. Our hearts should be fixed when it comes toward the Biblical truth of salvation. Acts 4:12 says, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." There is only one salvation. That's by repenting of your sins and trusting Jesus as Savior and Lord. We should know in our hearts that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Salvation is only through Jesus. Those that are saved know that in their hearts. We shouldn't be shaken when it comes to Biblical salvation.
Our hearts should be fixed upon worshipping and praising him. Since the Psalmist declared his heart was fixed, he could sing and give praise to God. A person whose heart is fixed toward God can worship and praise him. A Christian with a fixed heart will have a right relationship with God. There's no way around it. A person with a fixed heart won't be double-minded nor given to change. A Christian with a fixed heart will be steadfast, stable, and faithful in their walk with God.
Lastly, a person's heart should be fixed when it comes to the service of God. God has a place for the Christian in this life. We are called to evangelize the world and be witnesses for Christ. We have a responsibility to serve God. We should recognize it's a joy and privilege to serve God. A person with a fixed heart will be faithful in attendance to the House of God. You won't have to wonder where they'll be when it's time for Sunday worship. A person with a fixed heart will be faithful in prayer and Bible reading as well. A Christian will live a victorious life when their heart is focused toward God. A person with a fixed heart will be looking for Christ's appearing. That's the hope of the Christian, which is Christ's appearing. It's amazing what a difference a fixed heart can make in a Christian's life. The problem with most saved people in America is that their hearts aren't fixed toward God. They're half-hearted in their love and service toward God. Many of the problems that saved people deal with when it comes to their flesh is due to the lack of a fixed heart toward God. If Christians will purpose in their hearts to serve God and to dedicate their lives to him, then God will do great things in the lives. In order to serve God fervently, our hearts must be fixed toward him.
We should determine before God that we will keep our hearts fixed toward him. We need to allow God to have control over our lives. We need to allow our heart to ponder upon the things of God. One of the reasons why many saved people seem to be up and down in their walk with God is because of unstable, unfixed hearts. We allow the trials and tribulations of this life to affect us and our walk with God. However, the Psalmist declared that his heart is fixed and that he will sing and give praise. He was determined to allow nothing to interfere with his love and devotion toward God. Those that have a fixed heart won't be shaken when the Devil and all the forces of hell try to create havoc in that person's life. If we are going to worship and serve the Lord, we need to have a heart that is established and set in order. Our heart must be fixed upon truth. When our heart is fixed, we will worship and praise him. We can worship and praise him wholeheartedly when we won't allow anything in this world to interfere with our affection toward him.
What are some things our hearts should be fixed upon? First of all it should be fixed upon the truth, God's word. II Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." We are to recognize God's word is truth and we should fix our hearts upon the Word of God, which is infallible and inerrant. Our hearts should be fixed when it comes toward the Biblical truth of salvation. Acts 4:12 says, "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." There is only one salvation. That's by repenting of your sins and trusting Jesus as Savior and Lord. We should know in our hearts that Jesus is the only way to heaven. Salvation is only through Jesus. Those that are saved know that in their hearts. We shouldn't be shaken when it comes to Biblical salvation.
Our hearts should be fixed upon worshipping and praising him. Since the Psalmist declared his heart was fixed, he could sing and give praise to God. A person whose heart is fixed toward God can worship and praise him. A Christian with a fixed heart will have a right relationship with God. There's no way around it. A person with a fixed heart won't be double-minded nor given to change. A Christian with a fixed heart will be steadfast, stable, and faithful in their walk with God.
Lastly, a person's heart should be fixed when it comes to the service of God. God has a place for the Christian in this life. We are called to evangelize the world and be witnesses for Christ. We have a responsibility to serve God. We should recognize it's a joy and privilege to serve God. A person with a fixed heart will be faithful in attendance to the House of God. You won't have to wonder where they'll be when it's time for Sunday worship. A person with a fixed heart will be faithful in prayer and Bible reading as well. A Christian will live a victorious life when their heart is focused toward God. A person with a fixed heart will be looking for Christ's appearing. That's the hope of the Christian, which is Christ's appearing. It's amazing what a difference a fixed heart can make in a Christian's life. The problem with most saved people in America is that their hearts aren't fixed toward God. They're half-hearted in their love and service toward God. Many of the problems that saved people deal with when it comes to their flesh is due to the lack of a fixed heart toward God. If Christians will purpose in their hearts to serve God and to dedicate their lives to him, then God will do great things in the lives. In order to serve God fervently, our hearts must be fixed toward him.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
His Life For Mine
Verse 1: His heart was broken, mine was mended
He became sin, now I am clean.
The Cross he carried bore my burden
The nails that held him set me free.
Chorus: His life for mine, his life for mine
How could it ever be?
That he would die, God's son would die
To save a wretch like me
What love divine, he gave his life for mine
Verse 2: His scars of suffering brought me healing
He spilled his blood to fill my soul.
His crown of thorns made me royalty
His sorrow gave me joy untold.
Chorus: His life for mine, his life for mine
How could it ever be?
That he would die, God's son would die
To save a wretch like me
What love divine, he gave his life for mine.
Bridge: He was despised and rejected, stripped of his garments and oppressed.
I am loved and accepted and I wear a robe of righteousness.
Chorus: His life for mine, his life for mine
How could it ever be?
That he would die, God's son would die
To save a wretch like me (like me)
What love divine, he gave his life for mine (for mine).
He became sin, now I am clean.
The Cross he carried bore my burden
The nails that held him set me free.
Chorus: His life for mine, his life for mine
How could it ever be?
That he would die, God's son would die
To save a wretch like me
What love divine, he gave his life for mine
Verse 2: His scars of suffering brought me healing
He spilled his blood to fill my soul.
His crown of thorns made me royalty
His sorrow gave me joy untold.
Chorus: His life for mine, his life for mine
How could it ever be?
That he would die, God's son would die
To save a wretch like me
What love divine, he gave his life for mine.
Bridge: He was despised and rejected, stripped of his garments and oppressed.
I am loved and accepted and I wear a robe of righteousness.
Chorus: His life for mine, his life for mine
How could it ever be?
That he would die, God's son would die
To save a wretch like me (like me)
What love divine, he gave his life for mine (for mine).
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Is Afghanistan Worth Fighting For?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said back on September 3, 2009 that the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting for and signaled that he would be willing to send more troops if necessary. Back during the Spring there were 21,000 additional troops that President Obama sent to Afghanistan. Gates said they should be given a chance to succeed. He said the war in Afghanistan isn't slipping through the administration's fingers. General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is supposed to submit a recommendation in regards to troop increases. McChrystal stated on Monday August 31, 2009 that there needed to be a change in strategy in order for the U.S. to win the war in Afghanistan. Recent polls have shown public skepticism in regards to the war in Afghanistan. August was one of the deadliest months when it came to casualties among U.S. troops. Many Americans have been questioning the benefits in continuing the war since the number of U.S. casualties has risen in recent months. Leftist activists as well as conservative columnist George Will have been calling for the U.S. to wind down the war in Afghanistan.
Is Afghanistan worth fighting for? Most Americans wouldn't deny that the U.S. military needed to send troops to Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The problem is our troops are still in Afghanistan and lately the Taliban is making a comeback. Also, Osama bin Laden has never been captured. Rumor has it that Bin Laden is hiding in the Tora Bora Mountains along the Pakistani border. I don't believe most Americans are necessary anti-war but they don't like for the U.S. to be engaged in a protracted war where it seems the U.S. isn't making much progress. Is Afghanistan worth our blood and treasure?
I totally agree with the top Afghan commander General Stanley McChrystal that we need a change of strategy if we're going to win the war in Afghanistan. I will submit that if the Pentagon doesn't totally revamp the U.S. strategy in order to win the war, then the military should pull all the troops out of Afghanistan. It's senseless for us to remain in Afghanistan just to be policemen to the Afghan people. It's not worth the price in blood and treasure. We must do whatever is necessary to crush the opposition to win the war. That's what the U.S. and her allies did to both Germany and Japan during World War II. We brought those two countries down before we engaged in rebuilding both of those countries. What's the benefit in training Afghan security forces in policing their own country as long as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are still a threat?
What shoudl be our strategy? First of all, we need to totally destroy all the poppy fields in Afghanistan. That's one way to cripple the funding that supports Al-Qaeda. We also need to freeze all the funding that goes toward supporting terrorism. Some of the poppy fields are being destroyed. We need to continue that process of eradicating the poppy fields. We also need to use air power at a relentless pace to take down all the Al-Qaeda strongholds. There are some strongholds that need to be decimated. We also need to search for Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. He was the perpetrator behind the terrorist attacks and he needs to be tried in a military tribunal for all the murders that took place on September 11. A military tribunal needs to be established by the U.S. Congress to indict Osama bin Laden and all the Al-Qaeda suspects that planned and took part in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
I've said before that it wasn't possible for there to be a democracy in Afghanistan. I still stand by those words. The Afghan people don't know anything but a military dictatorship. Afghanistan is a Muslim country and a Muslim-dominated country isn't going to be democratic. Radical Muslims don't believe in democracy. Also I believe the Afghan people aren't willing to pay the price themselves to fight for freedom. They've been ruled for so long they don't know how to establish a democratic/republican form of government. In order to have a republican form of government with democratic principles the people must share a common set of values as well as they must possess discipline and self-restraint. Self-government requires responsibility and a common set of shared values among its people. There's too much turmoil in Afghanistan. Democracy will never work there.
It's time for the Defense Department to make a choice. Either we totally revamp our strategy in Afghanistan for a victory or we should pull all our troops out. Enough is enough. Eight years is too long. We can't exhaust all our resources in Afghanistan. There's other Al-Qaeda hideouts in other places we need to destroy. The military needs to take the handcuffs off our troops and allow them to use whatever force is necessary to destroy the terrorists. The military needs to stop these silly rules of engagement. Either we change our strategy and declare a mandate for victory or we leave Afghanistan.
Is Afghanistan worth fighting for? Most Americans wouldn't deny that the U.S. military needed to send troops to Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and the Taliban immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The problem is our troops are still in Afghanistan and lately the Taliban is making a comeback. Also, Osama bin Laden has never been captured. Rumor has it that Bin Laden is hiding in the Tora Bora Mountains along the Pakistani border. I don't believe most Americans are necessary anti-war but they don't like for the U.S. to be engaged in a protracted war where it seems the U.S. isn't making much progress. Is Afghanistan worth our blood and treasure?
I totally agree with the top Afghan commander General Stanley McChrystal that we need a change of strategy if we're going to win the war in Afghanistan. I will submit that if the Pentagon doesn't totally revamp the U.S. strategy in order to win the war, then the military should pull all the troops out of Afghanistan. It's senseless for us to remain in Afghanistan just to be policemen to the Afghan people. It's not worth the price in blood and treasure. We must do whatever is necessary to crush the opposition to win the war. That's what the U.S. and her allies did to both Germany and Japan during World War II. We brought those two countries down before we engaged in rebuilding both of those countries. What's the benefit in training Afghan security forces in policing their own country as long as the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are still a threat?
What shoudl be our strategy? First of all, we need to totally destroy all the poppy fields in Afghanistan. That's one way to cripple the funding that supports Al-Qaeda. We also need to freeze all the funding that goes toward supporting terrorism. Some of the poppy fields are being destroyed. We need to continue that process of eradicating the poppy fields. We also need to use air power at a relentless pace to take down all the Al-Qaeda strongholds. There are some strongholds that need to be decimated. We also need to search for Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. He was the perpetrator behind the terrorist attacks and he needs to be tried in a military tribunal for all the murders that took place on September 11. A military tribunal needs to be established by the U.S. Congress to indict Osama bin Laden and all the Al-Qaeda suspects that planned and took part in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
I've said before that it wasn't possible for there to be a democracy in Afghanistan. I still stand by those words. The Afghan people don't know anything but a military dictatorship. Afghanistan is a Muslim country and a Muslim-dominated country isn't going to be democratic. Radical Muslims don't believe in democracy. Also I believe the Afghan people aren't willing to pay the price themselves to fight for freedom. They've been ruled for so long they don't know how to establish a democratic/republican form of government. In order to have a republican form of government with democratic principles the people must share a common set of values as well as they must possess discipline and self-restraint. Self-government requires responsibility and a common set of shared values among its people. There's too much turmoil in Afghanistan. Democracy will never work there.
It's time for the Defense Department to make a choice. Either we totally revamp our strategy in Afghanistan for a victory or we should pull all our troops out. Enough is enough. Eight years is too long. We can't exhaust all our resources in Afghanistan. There's other Al-Qaeda hideouts in other places we need to destroy. The military needs to take the handcuffs off our troops and allow them to use whatever force is necessary to destroy the terrorists. The military needs to stop these silly rules of engagement. Either we change our strategy and declare a mandate for victory or we leave Afghanistan.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Injecting Race into Politics
One of the tactics of the Left when it comes to discrediting someone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint is by injecting race into politics or race-baiting. In other words, if a conservative in the news media or politician doesn't agree with President Obama's policies as president then the Left will refer to those in opposition as racists. That's an old trick that's been used from the liberal playbook for years. Last Wednesday September 9, 2009, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted out "You lie!" when President Obama was giving a speech about healthcare before both houses of Congress. He was ridiculed for making that statement and the House this past week expressed their displeasure at Wilson's statement.
This past Tuesday former president Jimmy Carter used race-baiting when commenting on Wilson's "loud" remark towards Obama last Wednesday. Carter said Wilson's outburst to Obama last week was an act based on "racism". Carter also said Wilson's comment was "dastardly" and the president should be treated with respect. Here's an ignorant statement Carter made. He said that Wilson's comment was part of an inherent "feeling" of some in this country who feel that a black man shouldn't be president. Has Jimmy Carter been traveling all over the country hearing people make statements that no black man is qualified to be president? What proof does Carter have that Wilson was making a racist statement? Is it because of the state in which he lives? It's true that South Carolina was a slave state during the Antebellum days of the South as well as it was once a part of the confederacy. However, you can't imply that by the state that Wilson represents makes him a racist. Nor is the fact that Carter is from Georgia makes Carter a racist. It's foolish that Carter played the same tactic that civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton love to use. It's preposterous.
Making charges of racism is wrong when there's no kind of facts to uphold the charge. Some of the Senate Democrats such as Dick Durbin (Illinois) and Jim Webb (Virginia) as well as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have distanced themselves from Carter's statements. They know what kind of mood the country is in right now towards Obama's radical socialist policies. These Democrats in the Senate know that Carter's racial allegation isn't going to fly with the American people at this time. It's infuriating how the Left will use that race-baiting tactic to marginalize someone. All these charges of racism are polarizing the country. It's hard to express a thought about a particular minority or some issue without being labeled "racist". Carter is playing into that race card game.
Many liberals and Democrats spoke out strongly against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin when she was on the presidential ticket with Senator John McCain last year. She received an assortment of attacks from liberals. What if conservatives made the allegation that the reason why liberals oppose her because she's a woman? That would be foolish! That's the same thing when the liberals will label someone a racist because they oppose President Obama's policies. I can remember back in 1991 when former President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the position of Supreme Court Justice. I can remember the onslaught of attacks that were directed toward him by many liberals, both black and white. What if the conservatives had called Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Patrick Leahy a racist for opposing Thomas? That racist charge could have been leveled towards white liberals during that time. If this country was as racist as a whole like some civil rights leaders would like to think, then Obama wouldn't have been elected last year as president. I believe that the average American as a whole view people as people and don't allow race to play a huge role in electing candidates. There are exceptions to the rule. There are a few people in different places that wouldn't vote for a black person. But I believe that's the exception. From everything I've been hearing in the news about these town hall meetings and the frustration many of the people have had towards Obama, it isn't about race--it's about his socialist policies that will bring American down the slippery slope to destruction. Many voters aren't just upset over Obama's policies--they are opposed to both houses of Congress as a whole. IT'S ABOUT ISSUES! EVERYTHING'S NOT ABOUT RACE!
I can remember some past instances of race-baiting such as the 1988 commercial then Vice-President George H.W. Bush aired on television on Willie Horton. Willie Horton was a black criminal who was sentenced for life without parole from Massachusetts (Bush's opponent Michael Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts at the time) who was allowed weekend furloughs. The point Bush was making was that then Governor Michael Dukakis was soft on crime. Jesse Jackson and many civil rights activists called that racism. They were stating Bush was making an issue of race. Back in 1980 then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan was campaigning in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980 giving a speech on state's rights. Anybody that remembers their history knows that during the slave days in the South many of those that supported the institution of slavery for example, believed in state's rights. However, state's rights during slave days wasn't all about slavery. It went much deeper. However, many liberal pundits will try to make people that don't know their history believe that state's rights was about slavery when in actuality that wasn't true. Many liberals made an issue of Reagan's speech. There was the case in the 1990 Senatorial race in North Carolina between Jesse Helms a conservative Republican, and Harvey Gantt a black, liberal Democrat. Helms aired an ad that stated that Gantt believed in racial quotas. Many civil rights leaders used that ad to say that Helms was making a racist statement. I'm not going to argue the point about the accuracy of that ad but I will say I don't doubt there are some on the Right that engage in race-baiting as well. However, race-baiting is used by the Left far more than the Right.
The Left will engage in race-baiting to marginalize media figures or certain politicians as a means to gain support for their agenda as well as a means to push their agenda through. I'm sick and tired of seeing race being injected into politics. It's infuriating you can't oppose a minority because of their policies without being labeled a racist. I believe most of the opposition that Obama faces is due to his policies--not his race. He knows that as well. It's time we rise above race-baiting and force those civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or anyone else that hurls a racist accusation to give evidence to support their accusation. Jackson, Sharpton, any media figure, or any politician shouldn't be hurling racist accusations in public unless they can grant evidence to support their claim. If I was to sue someone and drag them into court I would have to supply proof of evidence before the witness stand that the defendent was guilty of what I was accusing them of. Let's end all this race-baiting once and for all. If you don't have any proof of evidence to support a racist allegation, then keep your mouth shut!
This past Tuesday former president Jimmy Carter used race-baiting when commenting on Wilson's "loud" remark towards Obama last Wednesday. Carter said Wilson's outburst to Obama last week was an act based on "racism". Carter also said Wilson's comment was "dastardly" and the president should be treated with respect. Here's an ignorant statement Carter made. He said that Wilson's comment was part of an inherent "feeling" of some in this country who feel that a black man shouldn't be president. Has Jimmy Carter been traveling all over the country hearing people make statements that no black man is qualified to be president? What proof does Carter have that Wilson was making a racist statement? Is it because of the state in which he lives? It's true that South Carolina was a slave state during the Antebellum days of the South as well as it was once a part of the confederacy. However, you can't imply that by the state that Wilson represents makes him a racist. Nor is the fact that Carter is from Georgia makes Carter a racist. It's foolish that Carter played the same tactic that civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton love to use. It's preposterous.
Making charges of racism is wrong when there's no kind of facts to uphold the charge. Some of the Senate Democrats such as Dick Durbin (Illinois) and Jim Webb (Virginia) as well as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have distanced themselves from Carter's statements. They know what kind of mood the country is in right now towards Obama's radical socialist policies. These Democrats in the Senate know that Carter's racial allegation isn't going to fly with the American people at this time. It's infuriating how the Left will use that race-baiting tactic to marginalize someone. All these charges of racism are polarizing the country. It's hard to express a thought about a particular minority or some issue without being labeled "racist". Carter is playing into that race card game.
Many liberals and Democrats spoke out strongly against former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin when she was on the presidential ticket with Senator John McCain last year. She received an assortment of attacks from liberals. What if conservatives made the allegation that the reason why liberals oppose her because she's a woman? That would be foolish! That's the same thing when the liberals will label someone a racist because they oppose President Obama's policies. I can remember back in 1991 when former President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas for the position of Supreme Court Justice. I can remember the onslaught of attacks that were directed toward him by many liberals, both black and white. What if the conservatives had called Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Patrick Leahy a racist for opposing Thomas? That racist charge could have been leveled towards white liberals during that time. If this country was as racist as a whole like some civil rights leaders would like to think, then Obama wouldn't have been elected last year as president. I believe that the average American as a whole view people as people and don't allow race to play a huge role in electing candidates. There are exceptions to the rule. There are a few people in different places that wouldn't vote for a black person. But I believe that's the exception. From everything I've been hearing in the news about these town hall meetings and the frustration many of the people have had towards Obama, it isn't about race--it's about his socialist policies that will bring American down the slippery slope to destruction. Many voters aren't just upset over Obama's policies--they are opposed to both houses of Congress as a whole. IT'S ABOUT ISSUES! EVERYTHING'S NOT ABOUT RACE!
I can remember some past instances of race-baiting such as the 1988 commercial then Vice-President George H.W. Bush aired on television on Willie Horton. Willie Horton was a black criminal who was sentenced for life without parole from Massachusetts (Bush's opponent Michael Dukakis was governor of Massachusetts at the time) who was allowed weekend furloughs. The point Bush was making was that then Governor Michael Dukakis was soft on crime. Jesse Jackson and many civil rights activists called that racism. They were stating Bush was making an issue of race. Back in 1980 then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan was campaigning in Philadelphia, Mississippi in 1980 giving a speech on state's rights. Anybody that remembers their history knows that during the slave days in the South many of those that supported the institution of slavery for example, believed in state's rights. However, state's rights during slave days wasn't all about slavery. It went much deeper. However, many liberal pundits will try to make people that don't know their history believe that state's rights was about slavery when in actuality that wasn't true. Many liberals made an issue of Reagan's speech. There was the case in the 1990 Senatorial race in North Carolina between Jesse Helms a conservative Republican, and Harvey Gantt a black, liberal Democrat. Helms aired an ad that stated that Gantt believed in racial quotas. Many civil rights leaders used that ad to say that Helms was making a racist statement. I'm not going to argue the point about the accuracy of that ad but I will say I don't doubt there are some on the Right that engage in race-baiting as well. However, race-baiting is used by the Left far more than the Right.
The Left will engage in race-baiting to marginalize media figures or certain politicians as a means to gain support for their agenda as well as a means to push their agenda through. I'm sick and tired of seeing race being injected into politics. It's infuriating you can't oppose a minority because of their policies without being labeled a racist. I believe most of the opposition that Obama faces is due to his policies--not his race. He knows that as well. It's time we rise above race-baiting and force those civil rights leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or anyone else that hurls a racist accusation to give evidence to support their accusation. Jackson, Sharpton, any media figure, or any politician shouldn't be hurling racist accusations in public unless they can grant evidence to support their claim. If I was to sue someone and drag them into court I would have to supply proof of evidence before the witness stand that the defendent was guilty of what I was accusing them of. Let's end all this race-baiting once and for all. If you don't have any proof of evidence to support a racist allegation, then keep your mouth shut!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Cass Sunstein's Vision for America
Cass Sunstein is Obama's new Regulatory Czar. He won Senate approval by a 57-40 vote last Thursday September 10, 2009. He is the Director of Regulatory Affairs and information, and obscure but powerful agency within the Office of Management and Budget. He believes in regulating laws past, present, and future. I was reading some World Net Daily articles about him. One of them is from Ellis Washington. Sunstein is a former colleague of Obama's at the University of Chicago Law School. Obama appointed Sunstein a few months ago but the confirmation was delayed due to Republican fears he would promote a radical animal-rights agenda.
Glenn Beck, Fox News television show host says this about Sunstein: "Sustein is a friendly fascist who only 'nudges' people to bow to his will. He is the most powerful invisible man you'll ever see" According to Ellis Washington, the underlying philosophies that guide Sunstein's thinking are (1) moral relativism and (2) social darwinism. Moral relativism teaches that truth is based upon the cirumstances in a particular person's life. Social darwinism is another word for evolution, or survival of the fittest. In 2004 Sunstein wrote a book entitled, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever. He believes in regulating the affairs of society.
In 2005 Sunstein hosted a conference at Yale Law School and it was entitled, "The Constitution in 2020". Washington says that Sunstein advocates a "Second Bill of Rights" even more totalizing and all-consuming than initially proposed by Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's. Sunstein says the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments. He said the document shouldn't reflect the extreme right-wing views of the Republican Party. His thinking is very socialist in nature. He believes in the soviet system of a planned economy. He doesn't believe in free enterprise. Another radical view he holds is his view about the rights of animals. He believes that personhood doesn't need to be conferred onto animals in order to grant it legal standing for suit. He believes animals should possess the right to sue adults in court. How they can do that when they don't have the ability to speak for themselves is beyond me. Sunstein says that an adult horse or dog is more rational than an infant child. Therefore adult animals deserve special rights over human infants according to what I'm reading from Sunstein.
What are some of the proposals in Sunstein's Second Bill of Rights? They are these. (1) The right to remunerative or useful jobs in industries or shops. (2) A person should be capable of earning enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation. That's a line similar to Karl Marx's philosophy, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." (3) Farmers have a right to raise and sell his products at a return which will give his family a decent living. (4) Another one is a right to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents, and unemployment. (5) Businessmen both large and small have a right to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad. (6) Every person has a right to a home. (7) Every person has a right to a good education. (8) Every person has a right to health care and good health. This sounds likes an excerpt from the communist playbook that supports the notion of a nanny state. The state should provide for it's citizens from cradle to grave. There are a few points that Sunstein makes that I agree with but it's not the perogative of the government to provide for the material needs of it's citizens.
Whatever happened to the philosophy of "rugged individualism"? There used to be a time in our nation's history when a person believed it was HIS responsibility to provide a living for himself and his family. It wasn't the job nor responsibility of the government to make sure our needs were taken care of. There was a time when America lived by that ideal. However, since Roosevelt's New Deal Americans are depending more and more on the government to provide for them from cradle to grave. I do agree that business monopolies are dangerous to our country. I believe government should have the role in using the antitrust laws to break up monopolies which are what Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft did during their administrations. I believe in limited government regulation of business in the sense of breaking up monopolies that hurt the American people and the SEC chairman keeping a rein on Wall Street. Otherwise, government shouldn't involve themselves in business. America's jobs should be created by the private sector. The government has no business in micromanaging the economy. I do agree that everyone has the right to an education, but that's the responsibility of the parents and the church, not the federal government. In reading about Sunstein's worldview about the rule of government, it's evident he believes in totalitarianism.
If you take a look at some of the "czar" appointments (which are unconstitutional) which Obama has made such as Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Van Jones to name a few, they all uphold the communist philosophy. They are communist to the core. Obama aligns himself with those type of people in his administration. I believe these unaccountable czars are representative of Obama's thinking. I am thankful that Van Jones has resigned over a week ago. However, all the 34 czars Obama has appointed are out to remake America into a totalitarian society. They are quickly transforming America into a communist country right before our eyes.
Glenn Beck, Fox News television show host says this about Sunstein: "Sustein is a friendly fascist who only 'nudges' people to bow to his will. He is the most powerful invisible man you'll ever see" According to Ellis Washington, the underlying philosophies that guide Sunstein's thinking are (1) moral relativism and (2) social darwinism. Moral relativism teaches that truth is based upon the cirumstances in a particular person's life. Social darwinism is another word for evolution, or survival of the fittest. In 2004 Sunstein wrote a book entitled, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More than Ever. He believes in regulating the affairs of society.
In 2005 Sunstein hosted a conference at Yale Law School and it was entitled, "The Constitution in 2020". Washington says that Sunstein advocates a "Second Bill of Rights" even more totalizing and all-consuming than initially proposed by Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930's. Sunstein says the second bill should be seen as part and parcel of America's constitutive commitments. He said the document shouldn't reflect the extreme right-wing views of the Republican Party. His thinking is very socialist in nature. He believes in the soviet system of a planned economy. He doesn't believe in free enterprise. Another radical view he holds is his view about the rights of animals. He believes that personhood doesn't need to be conferred onto animals in order to grant it legal standing for suit. He believes animals should possess the right to sue adults in court. How they can do that when they don't have the ability to speak for themselves is beyond me. Sunstein says that an adult horse or dog is more rational than an infant child. Therefore adult animals deserve special rights over human infants according to what I'm reading from Sunstein.
What are some of the proposals in Sunstein's Second Bill of Rights? They are these. (1) The right to remunerative or useful jobs in industries or shops. (2) A person should be capable of earning enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation. That's a line similar to Karl Marx's philosophy, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." (3) Farmers have a right to raise and sell his products at a return which will give his family a decent living. (4) Another one is a right to adequate protection from economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents, and unemployment. (5) Businessmen both large and small have a right to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad. (6) Every person has a right to a home. (7) Every person has a right to a good education. (8) Every person has a right to health care and good health. This sounds likes an excerpt from the communist playbook that supports the notion of a nanny state. The state should provide for it's citizens from cradle to grave. There are a few points that Sunstein makes that I agree with but it's not the perogative of the government to provide for the material needs of it's citizens.
Whatever happened to the philosophy of "rugged individualism"? There used to be a time in our nation's history when a person believed it was HIS responsibility to provide a living for himself and his family. It wasn't the job nor responsibility of the government to make sure our needs were taken care of. There was a time when America lived by that ideal. However, since Roosevelt's New Deal Americans are depending more and more on the government to provide for them from cradle to grave. I do agree that business monopolies are dangerous to our country. I believe government should have the role in using the antitrust laws to break up monopolies which are what Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft did during their administrations. I believe in limited government regulation of business in the sense of breaking up monopolies that hurt the American people and the SEC chairman keeping a rein on Wall Street. Otherwise, government shouldn't involve themselves in business. America's jobs should be created by the private sector. The government has no business in micromanaging the economy. I do agree that everyone has the right to an education, but that's the responsibility of the parents and the church, not the federal government. In reading about Sunstein's worldview about the rule of government, it's evident he believes in totalitarianism.
If you take a look at some of the "czar" appointments (which are unconstitutional) which Obama has made such as Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Van Jones to name a few, they all uphold the communist philosophy. They are communist to the core. Obama aligns himself with those type of people in his administration. I believe these unaccountable czars are representative of Obama's thinking. I am thankful that Van Jones has resigned over a week ago. However, all the 34 czars Obama has appointed are out to remake America into a totalitarian society. They are quickly transforming America into a communist country right before our eyes.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Remembering 9/11
Eight years ago on September 11, 2001 our world changed forever. Nineteen Middle-Eastern men hijacked four jets and crashed them into both the Twin Towers, the west wing of the Pentagon and the fourth plane crashed into a rural field in Shanksville, Pennyslvania. Around 3000 people died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It was the worst attack that the U.S ever experienced on our own soil. The jets that were involved in the crash were American Airlines Flight 11 which crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, United Flight 175 whiched crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center, American Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon, and United Flight 93 which crashed into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The National Security Agency intercepted communications which indicated Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks. Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. The others were from the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, and Egypt. Mohammad Atta who was the pilot that steered American Flight 11 into the North Tower, was the ringleader. On September 27, 2001, the FBI released photos of the identifies of the nineteen hijackers.
I vividly remember the day. It was on a Tuesday morning. The attacks started at around 8:46 a.m EST. I first heard about it right before 10:00 a.m. CST. I was told that there were jets that slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a rural field in Pennsylvania. When I first heard about it, the thought came to my mind it was some type of terrorist attack. I didn't know that Al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden was behind the attack. I never even heard of Al-Qaeda. I remember the week before the United States had sent a delegation to the racism conference in South Africa. The U.S. pulled out their delegation before the conference was over because of derogatory remarks made about Israel. I figured the attacks were a means of vengeance toward the U.S. for pulling out of the conference. That was my first instinct. Then later I found out it was Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden behind the attacks. I remember later on that day as well many vehicles were lining up at convenience stores to purchase gasoline for fears that prices would dramatically rise. Gas prices in my area were $1.49 per gallon. That sounds cheap today. There were a few gas stations in some areas of the country that gouged the prices, but it didn't last long.
I remember there were churches calling for prayer meetings as a result of the attacks. Many Americans banned together because they recognized it was America being attacked--regardless of race, religion, or creed. America was in a state of surprise. Who would've expected it? The Lord allowed for us to see America wasn't invincible. The next day on the 700 Club the late Jerry Falwell was a guest on the show and he blamed the attacks on the abortionists, the gays rights groups, etc. He received some ire for that and shortly afterwards he apologized for his remark. The New York Stock Exchange closed for the remainder of the week due to the attacks. When they opened back up on September 17, 2001, stocks took heavy losses. Not too long after that time, Congress passed the controversial Patriot Act which gave our government sweeping powers to prosecute the "War on Terrorism" and use whatever means possible to find terrorist suspects. The U.S. and NATO launched a war on terrorism in October to rout the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as disrupt Al-Qaeda's network. Even though the war on terrorism hasn't been prosecuted properly, we've been blessed to have not experienced another major attack since that day.
September 11 is now the day where we celebrate Patriot's Day, in honor of all those that bravely gave their lives on that tragic day. All those that were flying on the jets died as well as many in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Many of the firefighters in New York died trying to rescue those that were trapped in the World Trade Center. There's been a commemorative stamp made which shows firefighters standing by the rubble of the former World Trade Center. Let's not forget what happened that day and the price that's been paid to preserve our freedoms. Many Americans on that day showed true bravery, including those passagers on United Flight 93. It's been theorized that the intended target for that jet was either the White House or Capitol Hill. However, those passengers on Flight 93 caught word about the other jet crashings so they decided to ban together and thwart the efforts of the hijackers on that plane. Thank God they succeeded and it only crashed into a field in Pennsylvania instead of Capitol Hill or the White House. It was unfortunate all those on Flight 93 perished. Americans have shown over the last two centuries that they can stand to the challenge when necessary. That's what many Americans did on September 11. That's what makes America special. Thank God for those that have bravely stood for and defended America. Amen!
I vividly remember the day. It was on a Tuesday morning. The attacks started at around 8:46 a.m EST. I first heard about it right before 10:00 a.m. CST. I was told that there were jets that slammed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a rural field in Pennsylvania. When I first heard about it, the thought came to my mind it was some type of terrorist attack. I didn't know that Al-Qaeda or Osama bin Laden was behind the attack. I never even heard of Al-Qaeda. I remember the week before the United States had sent a delegation to the racism conference in South Africa. The U.S. pulled out their delegation before the conference was over because of derogatory remarks made about Israel. I figured the attacks were a means of vengeance toward the U.S. for pulling out of the conference. That was my first instinct. Then later I found out it was Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden behind the attacks. I remember later on that day as well many vehicles were lining up at convenience stores to purchase gasoline for fears that prices would dramatically rise. Gas prices in my area were $1.49 per gallon. That sounds cheap today. There were a few gas stations in some areas of the country that gouged the prices, but it didn't last long.
I remember there were churches calling for prayer meetings as a result of the attacks. Many Americans banned together because they recognized it was America being attacked--regardless of race, religion, or creed. America was in a state of surprise. Who would've expected it? The Lord allowed for us to see America wasn't invincible. The next day on the 700 Club the late Jerry Falwell was a guest on the show and he blamed the attacks on the abortionists, the gays rights groups, etc. He received some ire for that and shortly afterwards he apologized for his remark. The New York Stock Exchange closed for the remainder of the week due to the attacks. When they opened back up on September 17, 2001, stocks took heavy losses. Not too long after that time, Congress passed the controversial Patriot Act which gave our government sweeping powers to prosecute the "War on Terrorism" and use whatever means possible to find terrorist suspects. The U.S. and NATO launched a war on terrorism in October to rout the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as disrupt Al-Qaeda's network. Even though the war on terrorism hasn't been prosecuted properly, we've been blessed to have not experienced another major attack since that day.
September 11 is now the day where we celebrate Patriot's Day, in honor of all those that bravely gave their lives on that tragic day. All those that were flying on the jets died as well as many in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Many of the firefighters in New York died trying to rescue those that were trapped in the World Trade Center. There's been a commemorative stamp made which shows firefighters standing by the rubble of the former World Trade Center. Let's not forget what happened that day and the price that's been paid to preserve our freedoms. Many Americans on that day showed true bravery, including those passagers on United Flight 93. It's been theorized that the intended target for that jet was either the White House or Capitol Hill. However, those passengers on Flight 93 caught word about the other jet crashings so they decided to ban together and thwart the efforts of the hijackers on that plane. Thank God they succeeded and it only crashed into a field in Pennsylvania instead of Capitol Hill or the White House. It was unfortunate all those on Flight 93 perished. Americans have shown over the last two centuries that they can stand to the challenge when necessary. That's what many Americans did on September 11. That's what makes America special. Thank God for those that have bravely stood for and defended America. Amen!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Is Text-Messaging Evil?
Back in June of this year I attended a campmeeting in Mayfield, Kentucky. On Friday during the day service there was a preacher from South Carolina who preached a message entitled, "The Tragedy of Technology." He was preaching about the downfall of modern technology in the church and how so many people have shipwrecked their lives as a result of the evil that's displayed on the internet. He was mentioning about some of the technological gadgets we use in modern day society and how we've become addicted to them. This past Monday on Labor Day I attended a church picnic in South Union, Kentucky and I was talking to a young preacher friend that I know. We were discussing some of the modern forms of technology today and one of the subjects we were discussing was text-messaging.
I've heard some preachers express dismay over many of our young people sending numerous text messages a day. They wonder what are they discussing when text-messaging. I will admit many of our young people today don't need to have a cell phone in their possession simply because many of them use a cell phone as a toy. I believe if a teenager is going to possess a cell phone, there needs to be a specific use for it. In reverting back to what I was discussing, some people have a tendency to blame our young people's addiction to cell phones or whatever the case might be on the technology themselves. The reason why so many people use technology such as the internet, text-messaging, MySpace and Facebook for evil is because of impure hearts. The biggest problem is what's in the heart of man.
Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things; and desperately wicked, who can know it." That's the crux of the problem. I do recognize there are elements of danger when it comes to modern day technology such as the internet, for example. With modern day technology, evil becomes easily accessible at one's fingertips. Instead of having to leave the confines of your house to go to a bookstore to find pornography, a person can stay in their own home and with a few clicks of a mouse can log on to a porno site and view pornographic material. Also a person can communicate much quicker by means of email than just sending a letter to someone by mail. Evil can travel more extensively by means of modern technology. However, instead of texting, you can take a pen and a piece of paper and inflict as much damage that way as through the electronic means of texting. The only difference is texting is a modern-day form of communication whereas a pen and paper is the old-fashioned method of communication.
When I was in school there was no such thing as cell phones. When students wanted to secretly communicate with one another while the teacher was trying to instruct the students, they would write a note on a piece of paper and distribute it to their classmates. Today students text one another by way of cell phone. However, both methods can be just as wicked if the student who sends the message has a wicked heart. I do know that a person can communicate evil more quickly through modern technology such as email than just through a piece of paper with writing on it. But both methods of communication are just as evil if the person behind sending the message expresses evil thoughts.
The Bible also says that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." People speak wicked thoughts because their hearts are evil. It's not the technology itself that's evil--it's the heart. Technology can be a wonderful thing. However, instead of using technology for educational purposes as well as propagating the gospel, we've used it for evil. The filth that stems from the internet for example, has captivated the hearts and minds of Americans. The way technology's used reveals the heart of man. With technology the evil comes with the good. I do recognize there needs to be regulations on the use of technology because of wicked people. However, technology in and of itself isn't evil. The problem is when technology is used as a toy instead of a tool. We use modern-day technology to entertain people instead of using it to inform people as well as to preach the gospel to them.
Whether it be by means of texting or just using pen and paper, both methods of communication are representative of the thoughts of a person's heart and mind. It's just as evil for a student to scribble evil thoughts on a piece of paper and distribute it to someone as it is to send a wicked text-message. I've heard preachers over the years preach against television, the internet, and text-messaging. I understand their reasoning behind it. However, I believe if a person's heart is pure and upright, they could spend hours texting good and wholesome thoughts to someone as well as a person with a wicked heart could spend hours texting evil things to someone. I believe that applies to both young and old. It's what's in the heart. The problem is not the technological gadgets--it's the people behind them whose hearts are impure.
I've heard some preachers express dismay over many of our young people sending numerous text messages a day. They wonder what are they discussing when text-messaging. I will admit many of our young people today don't need to have a cell phone in their possession simply because many of them use a cell phone as a toy. I believe if a teenager is going to possess a cell phone, there needs to be a specific use for it. In reverting back to what I was discussing, some people have a tendency to blame our young people's addiction to cell phones or whatever the case might be on the technology themselves. The reason why so many people use technology such as the internet, text-messaging, MySpace and Facebook for evil is because of impure hearts. The biggest problem is what's in the heart of man.
Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things; and desperately wicked, who can know it." That's the crux of the problem. I do recognize there are elements of danger when it comes to modern day technology such as the internet, for example. With modern day technology, evil becomes easily accessible at one's fingertips. Instead of having to leave the confines of your house to go to a bookstore to find pornography, a person can stay in their own home and with a few clicks of a mouse can log on to a porno site and view pornographic material. Also a person can communicate much quicker by means of email than just sending a letter to someone by mail. Evil can travel more extensively by means of modern technology. However, instead of texting, you can take a pen and a piece of paper and inflict as much damage that way as through the electronic means of texting. The only difference is texting is a modern-day form of communication whereas a pen and paper is the old-fashioned method of communication.
When I was in school there was no such thing as cell phones. When students wanted to secretly communicate with one another while the teacher was trying to instruct the students, they would write a note on a piece of paper and distribute it to their classmates. Today students text one another by way of cell phone. However, both methods can be just as wicked if the student who sends the message has a wicked heart. I do know that a person can communicate evil more quickly through modern technology such as email than just through a piece of paper with writing on it. But both methods of communication are just as evil if the person behind sending the message expresses evil thoughts.
The Bible also says that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." People speak wicked thoughts because their hearts are evil. It's not the technology itself that's evil--it's the heart. Technology can be a wonderful thing. However, instead of using technology for educational purposes as well as propagating the gospel, we've used it for evil. The filth that stems from the internet for example, has captivated the hearts and minds of Americans. The way technology's used reveals the heart of man. With technology the evil comes with the good. I do recognize there needs to be regulations on the use of technology because of wicked people. However, technology in and of itself isn't evil. The problem is when technology is used as a toy instead of a tool. We use modern-day technology to entertain people instead of using it to inform people as well as to preach the gospel to them.
Whether it be by means of texting or just using pen and paper, both methods of communication are representative of the thoughts of a person's heart and mind. It's just as evil for a student to scribble evil thoughts on a piece of paper and distribute it to someone as it is to send a wicked text-message. I've heard preachers over the years preach against television, the internet, and text-messaging. I understand their reasoning behind it. However, I believe if a person's heart is pure and upright, they could spend hours texting good and wholesome thoughts to someone as well as a person with a wicked heart could spend hours texting evil things to someone. I believe that applies to both young and old. It's what's in the heart. The problem is not the technological gadgets--it's the people behind them whose hearts are impure.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Labor Day
Today is Labor Day. Americans celebrate Labor Day as the symbolic end of summer. People will travel and visit places, some will grill out, and others will enjoy the holiday off from work. It's the last official day of summer students can enjoy before heading back to school. Today most schools begin their year in August. Years ago students began their school year the day after Labor Day. Labor Day also marks the beginning of College and NFL Football, even though the regular season starts a few days before Labor Day. Labor Day is also marked with parades and the start of many political campaigns prior to the general election in November.
What are the origins behind Labor Day? Labor Day began in Canada in the 1870's as a result of Labor disputes in Toronto and Hamilton, Canada. It resulted in the Trade Union Act in Canada which protected union activity in 1872. The Canadians held labor festivals supporting the writer's strike and the Nine Hour Movement. American Labor leader Peter J. McGuire witnessed the festival in Canada and helped organize the first Labor Day Celebration in New York City. New York City was the first city to celebrate Labor Day on Tuesday, September 5, 1882 in America. Starting in 1884, Labor Day was moved to the first Monday in September.
In 1894, the Pullman's Strike took place in Pullman, Illinois. There was lower demand for rail cars and as a result George Pullman laid off several workers. Those that remained at the company received wage cuts but the rent the workers had paid remained consistent. Therefore, they protested over that and a riot ensued. President Glover Cleveland considered the strike illegal so he sent the U.S. military and U.S. Marshals to break up the strike. Several workers died as a result. Due to that incident, Congress rushed through a bill which made Labor Day a national holiday. It's been a national holiday since.
Let's not forget the meaning of this holiday. While we are celebrating this day with picnics, parades, football, and political stump speeches, let's remember all the sacrifices that have been made in our country over the last two centuries. This great country was built with numerous people and tons of labor. You can't accomplish anything unless you're willing to labor. We live in a society today where we have a generation of people that don't have much desire to work. That's tragic. We've lost the "Protestant work ethic" that has built this nation over the last couple of centuries. You can never know the joys and satisfaction of accomplishment unless you commence a project and then finish it in its entirety. We hear many psychologists stress the importance of building "self-esteem" in our young children. One of the greatest ways to build "self-esteem" in our young children is to instill in them a strong work ethic. Give them a project to work with and make them finish it to its entirety. They will possess a sense of self-worth if we give them opportunities to work. Without labor there'll be no success.
As a result of the Fall of Man, God told Adam that he would have to toil and labor due to the ground being cursed with thorns and thistles. God didn't implement the work ethic due to the fall. It's just that there will be obstacles in working due to the curse. I believe if man never fell he would be working. When you read the Bible, you read the importance of labor. If a man doesn't work, he will live in poverty. Have a great Labor Day and let's get busy and accomplish something.
What are the origins behind Labor Day? Labor Day began in Canada in the 1870's as a result of Labor disputes in Toronto and Hamilton, Canada. It resulted in the Trade Union Act in Canada which protected union activity in 1872. The Canadians held labor festivals supporting the writer's strike and the Nine Hour Movement. American Labor leader Peter J. McGuire witnessed the festival in Canada and helped organize the first Labor Day Celebration in New York City. New York City was the first city to celebrate Labor Day on Tuesday, September 5, 1882 in America. Starting in 1884, Labor Day was moved to the first Monday in September.
In 1894, the Pullman's Strike took place in Pullman, Illinois. There was lower demand for rail cars and as a result George Pullman laid off several workers. Those that remained at the company received wage cuts but the rent the workers had paid remained consistent. Therefore, they protested over that and a riot ensued. President Glover Cleveland considered the strike illegal so he sent the U.S. military and U.S. Marshals to break up the strike. Several workers died as a result. Due to that incident, Congress rushed through a bill which made Labor Day a national holiday. It's been a national holiday since.
Let's not forget the meaning of this holiday. While we are celebrating this day with picnics, parades, football, and political stump speeches, let's remember all the sacrifices that have been made in our country over the last two centuries. This great country was built with numerous people and tons of labor. You can't accomplish anything unless you're willing to labor. We live in a society today where we have a generation of people that don't have much desire to work. That's tragic. We've lost the "Protestant work ethic" that has built this nation over the last couple of centuries. You can never know the joys and satisfaction of accomplishment unless you commence a project and then finish it in its entirety. We hear many psychologists stress the importance of building "self-esteem" in our young children. One of the greatest ways to build "self-esteem" in our young children is to instill in them a strong work ethic. Give them a project to work with and make them finish it to its entirety. They will possess a sense of self-worth if we give them opportunities to work. Without labor there'll be no success.
As a result of the Fall of Man, God told Adam that he would have to toil and labor due to the ground being cursed with thorns and thistles. God didn't implement the work ethic due to the fall. It's just that there will be obstacles in working due to the curse. I believe if man never fell he would be working. When you read the Bible, you read the importance of labor. If a man doesn't work, he will live in poverty. Have a great Labor Day and let's get busy and accomplish something.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Will There by a Revival of the Fairness Doctrine?
In the last few years there have been prominent Democrats that have been stating they would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reimposed once again. Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have been calling for the Fairness Doctrine to be reinstated due to the prominence and success of conservative talk radio. Back in 1949 the Federal Communications Commission implemented the Fairness Doctrine. It dealt with controversial issues. It stated that holders of broadcast licenses need to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. For example, if a radio station was going to conduct a presentation on a controverial issue, then contrasting views were also to be presented as well on that radio station regardless of what method was used. The Equal time rule wasn't required when it came to presenting both sides of a controversial issue. Equal time was made in reference to political candidates stating their views on radio.
Back in 1987 the Federal Communications Commission under then chairman Mark Fowler decided to repeal certain aspects of the Fairness Doctrine. Fowler was opposed to the Fairness Doctrine because he felt it was in violation of the right of free speech under the First Amendment. In June 1987, Congress tried to preempt and codify the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it. In 1991, when Congress tried to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, then President George H.W. Bush threatened a veto and it wasn't until recently that some members of Congress were talking about re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine. The repealing of certain measures of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for political talk radio to flourish. It was a boon to conservative talk radio and out of that such media figures as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck were born to the radio industry. They've enjoyed great success and as a result the liberal media and Congress want to hush the conservative voice on talk radio. However, the media and Congress recognize that they can't hush talk radio by imposing the Fairness Doctrine as it is.
The Democratic-led Congress want to impose the Fairness Doctrine through a back-door approach. They want to disguise it and enforce it by changing it's terminology. They want to introduce such measures as localism and diversity ownership of the media to control speech on public radio. President Obama appointed another czar named Mark Lloyd. He is the Chief Diversity Officer in the Obama administration. According to WND (World Net Daily), Lloyd believes the Fairness Doctrine was never repealed. He's a strong supporter of it. What's chilling is he believes that conservative talk radio should be fined $250 million and the proceeds should go toward government-subsidized Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports the liberal PBS (Public Broadcasting System). Lloyd also believes radio stations whose programming doesn't meet public approval should be fined around $250 million dollars. He believes the programming on the radio stations should come under the guise of localism as well as have diversity ownership of the stations. Lloyd states the failure of liberal talk radio is indicative of market failure and it's in need of a regulatory fix. He doesn't believe the lack of success in liberal talk radio is due to listener preference.
In order to limit the spread of conservative talk radio, Lloyd believes the broadcast license terms should be shortened from eight to three years. He also believes in allowing local community leaders and activists to weigh-in on whether or not a station's license should be renewed. He proposes creating regulations to increase broadcast of ownership diversity in terms of racial ethnicity and gender of the station owners.
It's scary the kind of influence Mark Lloyd will have in the Obama administration in attempting to silence dissent. The Obama administration is transforming America into a communist country. Communism doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Our present government doesn't want anyone challenging or disagreeing with their socialist agenda. That's why they're trying to stifle the voices of dissent, such as conservative talk radio. Congress and the President recognize if they want to stifle the voices of dissent, they have to use other approaches to accomplish that task. They know the citizens are aware of the Fairness Doctrine, so they'll change their terminology and use such phrases as ownership diversity and localism to achieve their goals. This will give the government the means to control speech. We must stand up to the government and defend the right of free speech. When we lose our right to free speech, we will no longer be a free people. We will become a nation of tyrants.
Back in 1987 the Federal Communications Commission under then chairman Mark Fowler decided to repeal certain aspects of the Fairness Doctrine. Fowler was opposed to the Fairness Doctrine because he felt it was in violation of the right of free speech under the First Amendment. In June 1987, Congress tried to preempt and codify the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it. In 1991, when Congress tried to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, then President George H.W. Bush threatened a veto and it wasn't until recently that some members of Congress were talking about re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine. The repealing of certain measures of the Fairness Doctrine allowed for political talk radio to flourish. It was a boon to conservative talk radio and out of that such media figures as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck were born to the radio industry. They've enjoyed great success and as a result the liberal media and Congress want to hush the conservative voice on talk radio. However, the media and Congress recognize that they can't hush talk radio by imposing the Fairness Doctrine as it is.
The Democratic-led Congress want to impose the Fairness Doctrine through a back-door approach. They want to disguise it and enforce it by changing it's terminology. They want to introduce such measures as localism and diversity ownership of the media to control speech on public radio. President Obama appointed another czar named Mark Lloyd. He is the Chief Diversity Officer in the Obama administration. According to WND (World Net Daily), Lloyd believes the Fairness Doctrine was never repealed. He's a strong supporter of it. What's chilling is he believes that conservative talk radio should be fined $250 million and the proceeds should go toward government-subsidized Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supports the liberal PBS (Public Broadcasting System). Lloyd also believes radio stations whose programming doesn't meet public approval should be fined around $250 million dollars. He believes the programming on the radio stations should come under the guise of localism as well as have diversity ownership of the stations. Lloyd states the failure of liberal talk radio is indicative of market failure and it's in need of a regulatory fix. He doesn't believe the lack of success in liberal talk radio is due to listener preference.
In order to limit the spread of conservative talk radio, Lloyd believes the broadcast license terms should be shortened from eight to three years. He also believes in allowing local community leaders and activists to weigh-in on whether or not a station's license should be renewed. He proposes creating regulations to increase broadcast of ownership diversity in terms of racial ethnicity and gender of the station owners.
It's scary the kind of influence Mark Lloyd will have in the Obama administration in attempting to silence dissent. The Obama administration is transforming America into a communist country. Communism doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Our present government doesn't want anyone challenging or disagreeing with their socialist agenda. That's why they're trying to stifle the voices of dissent, such as conservative talk radio. Congress and the President recognize if they want to stifle the voices of dissent, they have to use other approaches to accomplish that task. They know the citizens are aware of the Fairness Doctrine, so they'll change their terminology and use such phrases as ownership diversity and localism to achieve their goals. This will give the government the means to control speech. We must stand up to the government and defend the right of free speech. When we lose our right to free speech, we will no longer be a free people. We will become a nation of tyrants.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Clear Away the Dead Trees and Dry Brush
The USA Today newspaper says that a huge wildfire from downtown Los Angeles spread in all directions Monday and it has left firefighters wondering whether the blazing heat and the dry air will send it toward the L.A. neighborhoods. The fire has been blazing the last few days due to several days of triple-digit temperatures and low humidity. Two firefighters died Sunday in a wildfire in the San Gabriel Mountains. U.S. Forest Service spokeswoman Diane Cahir said the fire was growing in so many directions. On Sunday the fire was threatening the city of Acton in the Apple Valley. Many expensive homes in the mountainside area were in the fire's path. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger visited the area Sunday and told residents to move quickly when ordered out by firefighters.
Whether there was any arson involved in starting this fire, I don't know. However, the high temperature as well as the low humidity made it ideal for the fire. The fire had crept to a half mile from the century-old Mount Wilson Observatory. It is home to a telescope that was used in major astronomical discoveries in the early 20th century. What I found interesting was the line that I read when it said, "Unlike most wildfires here, this one is being pushed along not by wind but dry brush that has not burned for decades and has been made worse by two years of extreme drought." Whatever has happened to the concept of preventative maintenance?
Common sense should tell you that whenever you purchase a vehicle for example, there has to be periodic maintenance done to it such as changing the engine oil, transmission oil, anti-freeze, replacing your brakes, etc. If you want your vehicle to possess long endurance, then there has to be periodic maintenance. Whatever happened to common sense when it comes to periodic clearing of the dead trees and the dry brush in the forests? Gov. Schwarzenegger and the politicians in California don't have any backbone to stand up to the environmentalists when it comes to the safety of the residents of California. I don't believe in unnecessarily clearing away live trees and any type of vegetation that adds to the beauty of the forest. However, how do dead trees and dry brush benefit a forest? You can go to extremes either way when it comes to the environment. You don't want to cut down trees that you don't need from the forest. You can raze a forest to the point where it's not healthy for the environment. However, dead dry trees and shrubs are a detriment to the forest especially when it comes to fires.
If it wasn't for the low wind, this forest fire would be raging. All that brush that's been in the forest and hasn't been burned for years is what's adding fuel to the fire. If the dead trees and brush had been periodically cleared away, this fire wouldn't be spreading as extensively nor have as dramatic of an impact than it's going to have. The environmentalists are foolish in trying to discourage any type of forest clearing. There has to be a minimal amount of deforestation. I recognize you can go overboard in either direction. However, we're talking about clearing away dead trees and dry brushes--not live trees and vegetation. Dead trees and dry brush are a fire hazard.
The National Forest Service needs to periodically clear away dead trees, timber, and dry brush from the forests. That's common sense. A periodic clearing of the forest will help prevent future fires from having the widespread impact that they're now having. I recognize there are a combination of reasons why forest fires do happen. Some of the reasons are arson, dry temperatures and low humidity. However, it makes things worse when there are dead timber and brush that could help ignite a fire and add fuel to it. The forest fires that California has been experiencing wouldn't have been half as widespread and devastating if all the brush and unnecessary objects were cleared from the forest. A public workplace could be sued by OSHA if there's anything that could prove to be a fire hazard. There's no excuse for the environmentalists to tell us that we can't periodically clear away unnecessary brush from the forests. Lives have been lost and homes have been destroyed partially because of the policy that we can't clear forests. Smokey had a famous adage that said, "Only you can prevent forest fires."
Whether there was any arson involved in starting this fire, I don't know. However, the high temperature as well as the low humidity made it ideal for the fire. The fire had crept to a half mile from the century-old Mount Wilson Observatory. It is home to a telescope that was used in major astronomical discoveries in the early 20th century. What I found interesting was the line that I read when it said, "Unlike most wildfires here, this one is being pushed along not by wind but dry brush that has not burned for decades and has been made worse by two years of extreme drought." Whatever has happened to the concept of preventative maintenance?
Common sense should tell you that whenever you purchase a vehicle for example, there has to be periodic maintenance done to it such as changing the engine oil, transmission oil, anti-freeze, replacing your brakes, etc. If you want your vehicle to possess long endurance, then there has to be periodic maintenance. Whatever happened to common sense when it comes to periodic clearing of the dead trees and the dry brush in the forests? Gov. Schwarzenegger and the politicians in California don't have any backbone to stand up to the environmentalists when it comes to the safety of the residents of California. I don't believe in unnecessarily clearing away live trees and any type of vegetation that adds to the beauty of the forest. However, how do dead trees and dry brush benefit a forest? You can go to extremes either way when it comes to the environment. You don't want to cut down trees that you don't need from the forest. You can raze a forest to the point where it's not healthy for the environment. However, dead dry trees and shrubs are a detriment to the forest especially when it comes to fires.
If it wasn't for the low wind, this forest fire would be raging. All that brush that's been in the forest and hasn't been burned for years is what's adding fuel to the fire. If the dead trees and brush had been periodically cleared away, this fire wouldn't be spreading as extensively nor have as dramatic of an impact than it's going to have. The environmentalists are foolish in trying to discourage any type of forest clearing. There has to be a minimal amount of deforestation. I recognize you can go overboard in either direction. However, we're talking about clearing away dead trees and dry brushes--not live trees and vegetation. Dead trees and dry brush are a fire hazard.
The National Forest Service needs to periodically clear away dead trees, timber, and dry brush from the forests. That's common sense. A periodic clearing of the forest will help prevent future fires from having the widespread impact that they're now having. I recognize there are a combination of reasons why forest fires do happen. Some of the reasons are arson, dry temperatures and low humidity. However, it makes things worse when there are dead timber and brush that could help ignite a fire and add fuel to it. The forest fires that California has been experiencing wouldn't have been half as widespread and devastating if all the brush and unnecessary objects were cleared from the forest. A public workplace could be sued by OSHA if there's anything that could prove to be a fire hazard. There's no excuse for the environmentalists to tell us that we can't periodically clear away unnecessary brush from the forests. Lives have been lost and homes have been destroyed partially because of the policy that we can't clear forests. Smokey had a famous adage that said, "Only you can prevent forest fires."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)